Judgment ( 1. ) PRAYER is made in this writ petition of undue harassment of Master jagandeep Singh Anand aged about 20 years. ( 2. ) IT is submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the Case no. 1285/2002 under Sections 107,116, Cr. PC pending in the Court of CJM, kotwali Division, Jabalpur. On 8-6-1992 the house of petitioner No. 1 was raided. Petitioner filed a complaint in the Court of CJM, due to filing of complaint against police/administrative officials, petitioner was getting severe threats and was being harassed. As an outcome of vengeance show-cause notice was issued to initiate proceedings under Section 107 on 12-11-2002. Petitioner No. 1 was required to show cause why he should not be directed to produce a surety bond of Rs. 10,000/-, action is malafide for the reason that there is no witness in support of complaint. There is no material to support the complaint and initiate action. No enquiry was done, reply to the show-cause notice was filed. No action was taken for three months, second reply to show-cause notice was also submitted. Notice (P-11) was also served submitting that proceeding in Case No. 1285/2002 is malafide, illegal, intentional and deserves to be quashed. ( 3. ) A return has been filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 6. It is contended in the return that petitioner has unnecessarily clubbed the matters, there is no ground to allege malafide, matter is pending before the SDM, due process of law was initiated. There is no connection with the earlier cases and the complaint filed by the petitioner against the officials. Statements were recorded before filing the complaint, petitioner is in habit of pressurizing the police officials. ( 4. ) A return has also been filed by respondent No. 7 in which allegations have been denied. Action has been taken in accordance with law. Petitioner is in habit of threatening the officials, no interference is called for in the writ petition. ( 5. ) RECORD of the proceedings has been produced of 1285/2002. Perusal of the same indicates that the preliminary order was drawn in cyclostyled form, mind was not applied to the facts and circumstances of the case. Notice was also issued in a cyclostyled form under Sections 111, 107, cr. PC. It is mentioned that the order under Section 111 has been passed separately, that is in the cyclostyled form. ( 6. Notice was also issued in a cyclostyled form under Sections 111, 107, cr. PC. It is mentioned that the order under Section 111 has been passed separately, that is in the cyclostyled form. ( 6. ) SECTION 107, Cr. PC requires formation of an opinion of existence of sufficient ground for proceeding under the section which requires application of mind. Section 111 of Cr. PC also requires an order to be passed 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. The order in writing means due application of mind has to be made on the material on record. Substance of the information has to be mentioned. I find in the preliminary order drawn on 15-11-2002 under Sections 111 and 107 of Cr. PC that substance of the information has not been mentioned, name has been mentioned and thereafter only the words ******* have been mentioned. What is the nature of dispute has not been mentioned. It can not be said to be a recording of substance of information received. Remaining form is a cyclostyled one. ( 7. ) THIS Court has considered the question in W. P. No. 5095/2002, decided on 24-1-2003 of passing such cyclostyled orders. In Para 4 it was held, thus:-"4. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the various documents, it is clear that notice (R-l) is issued in cyclostyled proforma and proforma was meant to be used in a case under Section 107/116, Cr. PC by scoring out that Section 110 has been mentioned. There is no application of mind made by the SDM before issuing the notice (R-l) as to activity of petitioner. The preliminary order (P-6) is also in cyclostyled form. No reasons have been mentioned with respect to petitioner. Mind has not been applied to the facts of the case. Even in the police report (R-3), no immediate conduct was mentioned which may have occasioned apprehension to breach of peace. Thus, in my opinion the slipshod and mechanical method and manner has been adopted by SDM to initiate proceedings and the kind of report which is vague on which the proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner is wholly unsatisfactory method and on the basis of such vague report Section 110, Cr. Thus, in my opinion the slipshod and mechanical method and manner has been adopted by SDM to initiate proceedings and the kind of report which is vague on which the proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner is wholly unsatisfactory method and on the basis of such vague report Section 110, Cr. PC can not be resorted to until unless there is eminent apprehension of breach of peace. " ( 8. ) IN the instant case, it has been found that mind has not been applied, preliminary order has not been drawn as required under Section 111, cr. PC, mind has also not been applied to the complaint, thus, I find that initiation of proceedings is bad in law. The proceedings initiated in case No. 1285/2002 are quashed.