K. N. OJHA, J. Instant revision has been preferred against order dated 3-6-1985 passed by learned S. D. M. Sardhana, district Meerut, under Section 107/111 of Cr. P. C. by which the revisionists Muzaffar Khan, Masood Khan, Ishtiyaq and Iqbal, all residents of village Rahulli, police station Sardhana, district Meerut, were directed to explain on 22-6-1985 as to why personal bond of Rs. 2000 and two sureties of like amount be not got filed for maintaining peace and good behaviour for a period of one year. 2. Heard Sri. H. K. Yadav, learned counsel holding brief for Sri V. M. Zaidi, learned counsel for the revisionist. Sri Nirmal Kumar, learned AGA expresses his inability to advance argument and submits that he is unable to advance argument for want of record. 3. A perusal of the record shows that the S. D. M. Sardhana, district Meerut, called for report in Case No. 406/9 of 1985 under Section 107/111 Cr. P. C. from police station Sardhana about the dispute existing between the revisionists and the opposite party No. 2 Sardar Singh, who are residents of the same village. A report was submitted by the police station Sardhana that due to dispute of election there was apprehension of breach of peace and a detailed report was submitted, which finds place at Annexure No. 1 to this revision. On perusal of the report the Sub Divisional Magistrate was satisfied that there was apprehension of breach of peace, therefore, he issued notices to the revisionist to show cause by 22-6- 1985 as to why bonds be not got filed as specified in the impugned order. Aggrieved there from instant revision has been preferred. 4. The notice was issued under Sections 107/111 of Cr. P. C. Section 111 of Cr. P. C. contemplates that: - "when a Magistrate acting under Section 107, Section 108, Section 109 or Section 110, deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such Section, he shall make an order in writing, 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 class of sureties (if any) required. " 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionists that before issuing a notice under Section 107/111 Cr. P. C. application of judicial mind is necessary. " 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionists that before issuing a notice under Section 107/111 Cr. P. C. application of judicial mind is necessary. The S. D. M. is under the duty to ascertain the circumstances of the case to scrutinize the report submitted by the police station concerned or the report received from any other source and thereafter if the Magistrate arrives at the conclusion that there appears to be apprehension of breach of peace only thereafter notices be issued. It is submitted that in instant case a stereo-type paper was got typed and signed and thereafter notices were issued without any application of mind, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 6. Question arises as to whether the S. D. M. has applied his judicial mind or not while issuing notices or simply notices were issued by putting signature at the end of the notices. 7. A perusal of the record shows that before issuing of the notice a complaint was made to the Sub Divisional Magistrate that there was dispute between the two parties in respect of election matter. The parties belonged to the same village and at any time breach of peace could be committed. Thereafter the Sub-Divisional Magistrate called for report from the police station Sardhana. The police station Sardhana submitted report that an election was going on between the parties, who are the residents of the same village and there was likelihood of breach of peace. On receipt of this report the Sub Divisional Magistrate issued notice to the revisionists of specially mentioning the number of case, name of police station concerned the report dated 1-6-1985, the name of the opposite party on whose complaint the notice was being issued and the matter relating to which there was apprehension of breach of peace, the matter of personal bond and surety bond, the date on which the parties have to appear and the period for maintaining good conduct and behavior. If a paper is typed and so many particulars have been written in handwriting specifically mentioning about the fact of the case, it cannot be believed that judicial mind was not applied. Thus from the record itself it is clear that judicial mind has been applied in issuing the notice. If a paper is typed and so many particulars have been written in handwriting specifically mentioning about the fact of the case, it cannot be believed that judicial mind was not applied. Thus from the record itself it is clear that judicial mind has been applied in issuing the notice. The learned counsel for the revisionist has cited 1993 (30) ACC 146, Siyanand Tyagi v. State of U. P. , in which it has been held by this Court that if a proceeding is initiated under Section 111 of Cr. P. C. by issuance of stereo type notice and judicial mind has not been applied, the proceeding deserves to be quashed. 8. As is evident from the detailed report submitted by the police station concerned and particulars mentioned in the notice, in the instant case it does not appear that judicial mind has not been applied. The revisionist was only required to appear in the Court and to show cause as to why bonds be not got filed. The final order was not passed that they must file bonds. The revisionists have to appear in the Court and to say that the election was going to be held or not or there was no apprehension of breach of peace or the circumstances of the case were not such, which required that the bonds be got filed from the revisionists. 9. In view of the circumstances of this case this Court is of the opinion that the notices were issued after perusal of the report submitted by the concerned police station and after application of mind. Therefore, instant revision does not yield fruitful result. The revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed. .