JUDGMENT - DESHPANDE D.G., J.: Heard Mr. Tripathi for the petitioner. A.P.P. for the State present. 2. In this petition, the petitioner challenged show cause notice issued to him by Special Executive Magistrate dated 10-10-1988 under section 110(e), (g) of the Criminal Procedure Code on three grounds. Firstly according to the Counsel for the petitioner, calling upon the petitioner to furnish two sureties one of from Hindu community and other form Muslim community is illegal and unconstitutional; secondly calling upon the petitioner to furnish two sureties of Rs. 10,000/- each for two years is also disproportionate and thirdly, there was no material before the Special Executive Magistrate to proceed further under section 116(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the petitioner. 3. So far as objection to the show cause notice regarding calling upon the petitioner to furnish two sureties one of being Hindu and other being Muslim is concerned, the notice is obviously illegal and improper and that order cannot be upheld and maintained. Secondly, passing interim order and requiring the petitioner to furnish two sureties for two years is also appeared to be improper when section 116(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code requires that an inquiry should be completed within a period of six months unless the period is extended by special reasons to be recorded in writing. 4. So far as merits of the matter are concerned, it was contended by petitioner's Counsel that the Special Executive Magistrate did not have any material before him to proceed against the petitioner under section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Incident of 1998 about which C.R. No. 166 of 1998 is registered on 18-9-1998 and it involves offences under sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 324 and 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code. So far as show cause notice is concerned, within less than a month of this incident of 18-9-1998 there are serious allegations against the petitioner about his assault on a female by name Daya Vijayakumar Mittal and her husband. So far as show cause notice is concerned, within less than a month of this incident of 18-9-1998 there are serious allegations against the petitioner about his assault on a female by name Daya Vijayakumar Mittal and her husband. What is required for initiation of proceedings under section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code is that an Executive Magistrate should have information that there is within local limits of his jurisdiction a person who habitually commits the offences of kidnapping, abduction, extortion, cheating or mischief or any offence under Chapter XII of the Indian Penal Code or he is so desperate and dangerous as his being at large without security hazardous to the community. 5. There is one more incident of November, 1997 and from these allegations, it is clear that there were sufficient reasons for the Special Executive Magistrate to believe that the petitioner was indulging in similar types of activities. 6. It was also contended by Counsel for the petitioner that the show cause notice was issued on 10-10-1998 and since according to him the proceedings were liable to be completed within six months and since period of six months is over, the Special Executive Magistrate cannot proceed further with the proceedings. This objection is required to be rejected outright because this petition was filed in December, 1998 i.e. within two months of the show cause notice and on 15-12-1998 the petitioner obtained stay from this Court and in view of the stay granted by this Court the Special Executive Magistrate could not proceed with the case. Hence the petitioner cannot be permitted to take advantage of the provision of completing inquiry within six months. Apart from this, sub-section (6) of section 116 of the Criminal Procedure Code providing period of six months for completion of the inquiry further empowers the Special Executive Magistrate to extend the period by recording special reasons in writing. The Special Executive Magistrate can record, in these proceedings, that because of the stay granted by this Court, he could not proceed further with the inquiry and that would be sufficient compliance with the requirement of section 116(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 7. For all these reasons, this petition is partly allowed. The Special Executive Magistrate can record, in these proceedings, that because of the stay granted by this Court, he could not proceed further with the inquiry and that would be sufficient compliance with the requirement of section 116(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 7. For all these reasons, this petition is partly allowed. The condition imposed by the Special Executive Magistrate in the show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to furnish two sureties one belonging to Hindu community and other belonging to Muslim community and further requiring the petitioner to give bond for two years is set aside and quashed. The petitioner to give any two sureties for six months for Rs. 5,000/- each from the date of his appearance before the trial Court. With this modification the petitioner is directed to appear before the Special Executive Magistrate on 13-8-1999. The petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Petition partly allowed. -----