ORDER This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in Aa1MC94/04, pending on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Thoothukudi. The petitioners are the B-party group in Section 107 of CrPC Proceedings. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Advocate (Criminal. Side). 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the notice issued suffered from illegality and the substance of the information received is not set forth in the notice. No information has been given to substantiate that the learned Magistrate has applied his mind. Further, an illegality has been committed by clubbing both the A-party and B-party. It has been held in (Somasundaram and ten others v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharapuram and another) 2002 (1) CTC 72 The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted below: “6. An order passed under Section 111 of CrPC has to satisfy a double test: (1) It must set forth the substance of the information received as well as the amount of the bond to be executed, the terms of which it is to be in force and the number, character and class of sureties (if any required); (2) Besides, the order must also reflect that the Magistrate has assessed the truth of the information and the need for taking action under Section 107 of CrPC for preservation of peace and order. In the present case, as already seen, the orders passed under Section 111 of CrPC do not set forth the substance of information received by the SubDivisional Magistrate and the nature of the case the petitioners have to meet before entering appearance. Lack of information in the show cause order had caused prejudice to the petitioners, since they were not in a position to challenge the same. 7. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate has to satisfy himself about the need to issue a show cause order and the order must reflect the application of mind by the Magistrate to the facts placed before him. Lack of information in the show cause order had caused prejudice to the petitioners, since they were not in a position to challenge the same. 7. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate has to satisfy himself about the need to issue a show cause order and the order must reflect the application of mind by the Magistrate to the facts placed before him. The impugned orders do not indicate application of mind by the Magistrate and they do not satisfy the double test much less any one of them and hence are liable to be quashed.” It has been further held in (Thenmalaiyandi v. State), 1983 LW (Crl.) 313 wherein it has been held as follows: “The first is that the learned Magistrate has passed a common order against the members of the two parties and called upon them to face a joint enquiry. This is clearly not in accordance with law. It has to be pointed out that under Sub-Section(5) of Section 116, CrPC a joint enquiry can be held only in respect of members or association of the same group; but not against the member of two rival groups.” 4. I have carefully perused the material available on record. In view of the settled position of law, I am of the view that the notice issued by the learned Magistrate is not in accordance with law and it is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned notice is quashed and this petition is allowed. However, the learned Magistrate is at liberty to issue fresh notice in accordance with law. Consequently, connected CrlMPs are closed.