Judgment : 1 The petitioners approach this Court with a prayer to quash the M.C/439/2010 dated 14.7.2010 on the file of the first respondent. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that there is an error in the order passed by the first respondent under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. in M.C. No. 439 of 2010 dated 14.7.2010. The first respondent has not followed the procedure as contemplated under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the following three points for consideration: (i). at the time of passing order, petitioner No. 20 is only a minor and as per Section 17 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, no proceedings can be initiated as against a minor. (ii). the first respondent has not followed the procedure as contemplated under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. (iii). the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that while passing the order, the first respondent has not recorded his satisfaction on the basis of the materials submitted by the sponsoring authority and hence, the conclusion arrived at by the first respondent is illegal and hence, he prays for quashing the order passed by the first respondent. 4. The learned Government advocate (Crl.side) has filed his counter stating that from 1969 onwards, there is a dispute between the Hindu Nadar Community and Hindu Pallar Community in respect of Badrakaliamman Temple situated in village Natham S. No. 643/30 then and that, a quarrel has arisen between both parties and hence and peace committee meeting has been conducted on 29.9.2008 and 31.3.2009, even then on 13.2.2010 and 19 people belonging to Nadar Community unlawfully assembled with deadly weapons, encroached into the public pathway and placed fence and damaged the public road, and, therefore, a case has been registered in Crime No. 91 of 2010 and also a case has been registered in Crime No. 155 of 2010 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) of I.P.C, 4 of Eve Teasing Act read with SC/ST Act alleging that one Gurulaksnni belongs to Pallar Community was eve-teased by the Nadar Community persons on 7.3.2010. Yet another case has also been registered in Crime No. 156 of 2010 for the offence under Sections 147,148 Sections 147,148 , 294(b), 641 and 307 of I.P.C. read with 5(i)(X) and 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act. Yet another case has also been registered in Crime No. 156 of 2010 for the offence under Sections 147,148 Sections 147,148 , 294(b), 641 and 307 of I.P.C. read with 5(i)(X) and 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act. Since there is a dispute between both the Community people, it is necessary for the first respondent to initiate proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. after following the mandatory provisions, were directed to execute a bond as per Section 107 of Cr.P.C. He would further submit that the first respondent perused the materials submitted by the sponsoring authority followed the procedure as laid down in Section 111 of Cr.P.C, and after issuing a show cause notice, the order has been passed and hence, he prays for dismissal of the application. 5. Considering the rival submissions made on either side and also considering the fact that one Sathish @ Eli, who was arrayed as A-20, has filed his Birth Certificate to show that he is Hindu Nadar and his date of birth is 22.5.1993, on the date of passing the order, he was a minor; and in such circumstances, as per Section 17 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, no order shall be passed against juvenile, it is appropriate to in corporate Section 17 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, “ 17. Proceeding under Chapter VIII of toe Code of Criminal Procedure not competent against juvenile.- Notwithstanding anything, to the contrary contained in the no proceeding shall be instituted and no order shall-be passed against the juvenile under Chapter VIII of the said Code. ” Hence, the action against the 20th petitioner deserves to be set aside and hereby quashed in respect of the petitioner No. 20, 6. The Second limb of argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that he has not followed the procedure laid down in Section 111 Cr.P.C and it is appropriate to in corporate Section 111 of Cr.P.C, which reads as follows: “ 111. Order to be made. The Second limb of argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that he has not followed the procedure laid down in Section 111 Cr.P.C and it is appropriate to in corporate Section 111 of Cr.P.C, which reads as follows: “ 111. Order to be made. When a Magistrate acting under Section 107 ,Section 108 ,Section 109 or Section 110 , deems it necessary to inquire 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. ” 7. While perusing that order passed by the first respondent, it has not mentioned the number, character and class of sureties. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the first respondent herein has not followed the procedure as contemplated under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. and so, it suffers from irregularity. 8. Considering the third limb of the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that in last paragraph of the order, the first respondent herein has not mentioned that on the materials submitted by the sponsoring authority, he arrived at subjective satisfaction and then only, he passed that order, which reads as follows: “Tamil” 9. In such circumstances, without stating the materials submitted by the sponsoring authority, the first respondent has passed the order and so, on this ground also, the order passed by the first respondent is liable to be set aside. Hence, I am of the opinion that order passed by the first respondent suffers from irregularity and illegality and hence, the order passed. by the first respondent is liable to be quashed and it is hereby quashed. However, the first respondent is directed to follow the procedure laid down in Section 111 of Cr.P.C. before passing the order under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. 10. With the direction, this criminal original petition is disposed of. Consequently the connected M.Ps are also closed.