Judgment :- The petitioners have brought forth the above Criminal Original Petition, to call for the records in M.C.No.364 of 2002 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Krishnagiri, and quash the same. 2. The case of the petitioners is that, the first petitioner is the President, the second petitioner is the Treasurer and other petitioners are the Members of the Krishnagiri Taluk Lorry Owners Association, situated at No.59, Car Street, Krishnagiri. A dispute arose between the President and the Secretary, when the first petitioner had tried to initiate action against the Members, who had not paid the debts on purchase of spares from the shop owned by the Association and to deny voting right to the defaulters of annual subscription to the association, which was to be brought in the agenda of the Annual General Body Meeting. 3. It is the further case of the petitioners that while the association had sought for the permission to conduct the meeting at Jayalaxshmi Kalyana Mandapam, Madras Road, Krishnagiri on 21.07.2002, the other faction approached the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri, for an order of injunction, restraining the association to hold the meeting, which was dismissed by the said Court; that parallel to that, two FIRs were registered by the respondent police in Crime No.1344 of 2002 under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and Crime No.1345 of 2002 under Section 107 Cr.P.C. and in the meanwhile, the very meeting itself was held at the association premises on 21.07.2002 and therefore, any continuation of the proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. without any basis and need by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Krishnagiri, in M.C.No.364 of 2002 would amount to an abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed. 4. 4. While so, the petitioners were served with the notice of the proceeding under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. based on the report of the Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri Police Station, and hence, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, initiating the said proceeding, has issued notice calling for the petitioners to appear before him on 21.10.2002 as per notice dated 02.09.2002 in M.C.No.364 of 2002 and the petitioners have filed the above Criminal Original Petition testifying the validity of the same on grounds such as that the case has been registered out of jurisdiction by the respondent regarding the dispute amongst the parties; that the issue involved would neither fall under the jurisdiction of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Krishnagiri, nor the Krishnagiri Town Police; that the instance referred to in the impugned notice will not amount to initiating action under Section 107 of Cr.P.C.; that the impugned notice is not in consonance under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. etc., ultimately seeking for quashing the proceeding initiated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Krishnagiri, against the petitioners. 5. When the above Criminal Original Petition was taken up for consideration in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate on the Criminal side, taking notice on behalf of the respondent, learned counsel for the petitioners would highlight that the order passed under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. in the form of a show cause notice calling for the appearance of the petitioners is not an order passed in compliance of the warranting provisions of law nor is it in the format and therefore, the order only becomes liable to be quashed in limine and therefore, would pray for the same. 6. On the part of the respondent, the learned Government Advocate also has nothing to say against the arguments advanced on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioners, since it pertains to the legality and therefore, this Court is inclined to pass the following order. 7. 6. On the part of the respondent, the learned Government Advocate also has nothing to say against the arguments advanced on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioners, since it pertains to the legality and therefore, this Court is inclined to pass the following order. 7. In consideration of the facts and circumstances, encircling the notice issued by the Sub- Divisional Executive Magistrate under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. calling for the petitioners to appear before him, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate contra, what comes to be known is that the impugned notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Krishnagiri, is neither in the accepted format nor has it been prepared in a constructive manner adopting the necessary and warranting procedures established under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. and therefore, no mention need be necessary that the notice impugned issued to the petitioners is an inconsistent and improper one and the same only becomes liable to be quashed. 8. Time and again, this Court has insisted on the operative ingredients covered under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. to be complied with thereby 'setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force and the number, character and clause of sureties (if any) required' and without these vital informations forming part of the notice, it cannot be a valid notice in law and hence, the notice impugned herein issued to the petitioners under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. is without compliance of the operative portions of Section 111 of Cr.P.C. and illegal and only becomes liable to be quashed. In result, (i) the above Criminal Original Petition succeeds and the same is allowed; (ii)the impugned notice issued to the petitioners in M.C.No.364/2002 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Krishnagiri, is hereby quashed; iii) however, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Krishnagiri, will be at liberty to issue a fresh notice in compliance of the requirements of Section 111 of Cr.P.C. iv) Consequently, the connected Crl.M.P.is closed.