ORDER : Since common questions of facts and law are involved in the above captioned cases and parties to the lis are same and by way of these petitions challenge has been laid to orders dated 22.9.2021, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 83 of 2018, 4 of 2019, and 56 of 2019, same were heard together and are being decided vide common judgment. 2. By way of instant petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.PC, challenge has been laid to order(s) dated 22.9.2021, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Sarkaghat in Criminal Petitions No. 83/18, 4 of 2019 and 56 of 2019, affirming order(s) dated 25.9.2018, 11.12.2018 and 26.8.2019, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dharampur, District Mandi, whereby summons came to be issued to the petitioners by Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Dharampur, taking cognizance of the Kalandra filed by the Police Station Dharampur against the petitioners, alleging therein that they are interfering in the land of respondent-complainant and have also threatened the complaint to do away of their lives. 3. For brevity, facts of Cr.MMO No. 629 of 2021 are being discussed. Briefly stated facts are that police after having received the complaint from respondent No.2 that petitioners have interfered in the possession of the land by cutting grass and they have also threatened to do away with their lives, conducted the investigation and thereafter filed Kalandra before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, praying therein to proceed against the petitioners under Sections 107, 150 and 145 of Cr.PC. 4. Sub-Divisional Magistrate Dharampur, vide order dated 25.9.2018, (Annexure P-3), ordered for issuance of process against the petitioners (respondents therein) for 29.10.2018. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with issuance of the process without there being compliance of provisions contained under Sections 107, 111 and 112 Cr.PC, respondents filed criminal revision petition in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, praying therein to quash and set-aside the summoning order issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dharampur. 5. Learned Additional Sessions Judge Sarkaghat, Mandi, vide order dated 22.9.2021 (Annexure P-5) dismissed the criminal revision petition and directed the parties to appear before the court below on 8.10.2021, with further direction to Sub-Divisional Magistrate to decide the case within three months. 5. Learned Additional Sessions Judge Sarkaghat, Mandi, vide order dated 22.9.2021 (Annexure P-5) dismissed the criminal revision petition and directed the parties to appear before the court below on 8.10.2021, with further direction to Sub-Divisional Magistrate to decide the case within three months. In the aforesaid background petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 482 Cr.PC, praying therein to set-aside aforesaid orders dated 22.9.2021, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and 25.9.2018, passed by learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the orders impugned in the instant proceedings, this Court finds force in the submissions made by Mr. J.L. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dharampur, after having received Kalandra/inquiry report from the Police Station concerned could not have directly issued summons to the petitioners (respondents therein), rather before doing so, it ought to have followed the procedure provided in statutory provisions as contained under Sections 107, 111 and 112 of the Cr.PC. Mr. Sharma, argued that bare perusal of order dated 25.9.2018, (Annexure P-3), whereby respondents (petitioners herein) came to be summoned for 29.10.2018 clearly reveals that Sub-Divisional Magistrate directly on the basis of report submitted by the Reader of his court proceeded to issue notice, whereas he before issuing process ought to have formed an opinion whether persons sought to be summoned are likely to commit breach of peace and disturb the public tranquility or not. Since no opinion, if any, as stated herein above, ever came to be formed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate before issuing process against the respondents, order dated 25.9.2018, is not sustainable and could not have been upheld by the Revisional Court. 7. Mr. Narender Guleria, learned Additional Advocate General while supporting the order impugned in the instant proceedings contended that there is no infirmity in the summoning order or in the order passed by the Revisional Court. He submitted that before issuing process, due procedure was followed and as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while dismissing the criminal revision petition having been filed by the petitioners. 8. He submitted that before issuing process, due procedure was followed and as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while dismissing the criminal revision petition having been filed by the petitioners. 8. In the case at hand, record reveals that police after having received the complaint from the respondents that petitioners are interfering in their land and have threatened to do away with their lives, conducted investigation and thereafter, filed Kalandra/inquiry report before the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Dharampur, praying therein for registration of case under Sections 107, 150 and 145 of Cr.PC against the respondents. Sub- Divisional Magistrate Dharampur, after having received the aforesaid Kalandera was required to constitute an inquiry to arrive at conclusion that whether there is every likelihood of breach of peace and tranquility by the petitioners-respondents, but he directly on the basis of report submitted by his Reader approved the proposal for issuance of summons to the petitioners-respondents for 29.10.2018 as is evident from Annexure P-4, which reads as under: “This complaint was received in this office from Sh.Ludar Singh son of Sh. Devi Ram, resident of Bhedi, P.O. Sajao. In this matter, necessary direction was given to Police Station, Dharamapur for taking legal action. From the perusal of Kalandra received from Incharge, Police Station, Dharampur, it is clear that the respondents are cutting the grass from the disputed land for the last 2-3 years and the payment of grass is being given to the elder brother of complainant Shatrughan. The matter relates to land dispute and civil nature due to which there is apprehension of quarrel and breach of peace in the Illaqua. Due to which, Kalandra has been prepared by the police Station, Dharam under Sections 107, 150, 145 Cr.P.C. Sir, if approved, the complainant and respondents/other party may be summoned before this court on 29-10-18.” 9. Again on 29.10.2018, case was called, but since none came present on that date, matter was adjourned to 28.11.2018. On 28.11.2018, respondent was present and summon were ordered to be issued to the respondents for 19.12.2018. On 19.12.2018, both the parties were present and SDM after having given Kalandra to both the parties issued summons to the witnesses. At this stage, petitioners approached the Additional Sessions Judge Sarkaghat, Mandi, by way of criminal revision petition No. 83 of 2018. 10. On 19.12.2018, both the parties were present and SDM after having given Kalandra to both the parties issued summons to the witnesses. At this stage, petitioners approached the Additional Sessions Judge Sarkaghat, Mandi, by way of criminal revision petition No. 83 of 2018. 10. Before ascertaining correctness and genuineness of the rival contentions of both the parties, it would be apt to take note of Section 107 of Cr.PC, which reads as under: “107. Security for keeping the peace in other cases. (1) When an Executive Magistrate receives information that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace for such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit. (2) Proceedings under this section may be taken before any Executive Magistrate when either the place where the breach of the peace or disturbance is apprehended is within his local jurisdiction or there is within such jurisdiction a person who is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act as aforesaid beyond such jurisdiction.” 11. Careful perusal of aforesaid provision reveals that when Magistrate receives information that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, then he may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace for such period, not exceeding one year. Procedure requires to be followed finds mention in Section 111 of the Cr.PC, which reads as under: “111. Order to be made. Procedure requires to be followed finds mention in Section 111 of the Cr.PC, which reads as under: “111. Order to be made. 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.” 12. Careful perusal of aforesaid section reveals that when a Magistrate acting under Sections 107 to 110 Cr.PC, deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section, then he is required to make 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. 13. Section 112 Cr.PC provides that if the person in respect of whom such order is made is present in Court, it shall be read over to him, or, if he so desires, the substance thereof shall be explained to him. Section 113 of Cr.PC, provides that if such person is not present in Court, the Magistrate shall issue summons requiring him to appear. Section 114 Cr.PC provides that every summons or warrant issued under Section 113 shall be accompanied by a copy of the order made under Section 111, and such copy shall be delivered by the officer serving or executing such summons or warrant to the person served with, or arrested under, the same. Section 116 Cr.PC provides that when an order under Section 111 has been read over or explained under Section 112 to a person present in Court, or when any person appears or is brought before a Magistrate in compliance with, or in execution of, a summons or warrant, issued under Section 113, the Magistrate shall proceed to inquire into the truth of the information upon which action has been taken. 14. 14. If the aforesaid provisions of law are read juxtaposing each other, it is quite apparent that when a Magistrate acting under Sections 107 to 110 of the Code, deems it necessary to require any person to show-cause, then in that eventuality, he is required to make an order in writing setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed etc. Show cause notice under Section 111 Cr.PC can be issued only after an order is made in writing by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, setting forth the substance of the information received etc. In other words, before issuing show cause, he is required to form an opinion whether person against whom process is being issued was likely to cause breach of peace or tranquility in the area or not. Interestingly, in the case at hand, aforesaid aspect is completely missing. Notice under Section 111 Cr.PC has been issued to the petitioners herein by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate without making order in writing, detailing therein substance of the information received. In the instant case, perusal of order issuing notice clearly reveals that Sub-Divisional Magistrate merely on the basis of report submitted by the reader after having received Kalandra from the police station concerned, ordered for issuance of process/summons against the petitioners herein. Since no order in writing setting forth the substance of the opinion was made by the Magistrate concerned, issuance of notice under Section 111 of Cr.PC is bad in law. Order impugned in the instant proceedings passed by the learned Revisional court is not based upon the proper appreciation of the facts as well as law as has been observed herein above. There is complete non-compliance of provisions contained under Section 111 of Cr.PC, which clearly provides that show cause notice under this Section can only be issued after an order is made in writing by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate detailing the reasons or forming therein opinion that person against whom summons are intended to be issued are likely to cause breach of peace and tranquility in the area. Though Revisional court while deciding the criminal revision petition on merits specifically took note of the provisions contained under Sections 107, 111 and 116 of Cr.PC, but failed to appreciate that for issuance of show cause notice under Section 111 Cr.PC, due procedure as prescribed under Section 107 of Cr.PC is required to be followed. Though Revisional court while deciding the criminal revision petition on merits specifically took note of the provisions contained under Sections 107, 111 and 116 of Cr.PC, but failed to appreciate that for issuance of show cause notice under Section 111 Cr.PC, due procedure as prescribed under Section 107 of Cr.PC is required to be followed. Learned Revisional Court below rejected the plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the ground that no substance of information i.e. date, month or year in the order was required to be mentioned in the notice because it stood established on the basis of police complaint that offence under Section 107, 145 and 150 of the Cr.PC is made out against the petitioner. Learned Revisional court further erred in concluding that matter is to be decided on merits after parties adduce the evidence and at present, there is nothing on record prima facie to substantiate the submissions made by the petitioners. Finding returned by the Revisional court that Sub-Divisional Magistrate established on the basis of police complaint that offence under Sections 107, 145 and 150 CrPC is made out against the petitioners, is totally absurd and not based upon the proper appreciation of facts as well as provisions of law contained under Sections 107, 111 and 116 of the Cr.PC. 15. The Revisional Court below lost sight of the fact that no compliance of provision of Section 111 Cr.PC ever came to be made at the time of issuance of notice under said Section. There is no order ever came to be made in writing, detailing therein substance of the information received by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or forming therein opinion that there is likelihood of breach of peace and tranquility by the persons, to whom summons/process is proposed to be issued in terms of Section 111 Cr.PC. Since there is a complete non-compliance of provisions contained under Sections 107 and 111 CrPC, summons issued to the petitioners being bad in law, are not sustainable in the eye of law. 16. Consequently, in view of the above, present petitions succeed and order dated 22.9.2021, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Petitions No. 83/18, 4 of 2019 and 56 of 2019 and orders dated 25.9.2018, 11.12.2018 and 26.8.2019, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, are quashed and set-aside being bad in law. 16. Consequently, in view of the above, present petitions succeed and order dated 22.9.2021, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Petitions No. 83/18, 4 of 2019 and 56 of 2019 and orders dated 25.9.2018, 11.12.2018 and 26.8.2019, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, are quashed and set-aside being bad in law. In view of the above, present petitions are disposed of alongwith pending application if any.