ORDER : This Crl.M.C has been filed seeking the following reliefs: “Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash the entire proceedings in M.C.No.387/2023 of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Perinthalmanna against the petitioner (Annexure A), in the interests of justice.” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the order and the relevant provisions. 3. Annexure A Order dated 23.09.2023, issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Perinthalmanna in M.C. No.387 of 2023 is under challenge in this petition. 4. While assailing the order, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that preliminary order with a direction to execute bond for Rs.50,000/-with two solvent sureties for the like amount to keep the peace for a period of one year as contemplated in Section 107 r/w Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC for short) has been passed against the petitioner, without any justifiable reasons. It is submitted that the order has been passed after referring only one crime viz. Crime No.1 of 2023 alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 354-A(1)(i) of Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 8, 7, 9(l) & 9(m) and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in order to pass a preliminary order under Section 107 r/w 111 of Cr.PC, the conditions laid under Section 111 Cr.PC should be followed. He has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Santhosh M.V and Others v. State of Kerala and Others [2014 (3) KHC SN 54] raising contention that merely because a person was made an accused in one case, the same alone is not sufficient to initiate proceedings against him under Section 107 of Cr.PC. In paragraphs 15 and 17 of the Judgment, this Court observed as under: “In all the above cases, proceedings were initiated by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on the basis of crimes registered by the Station House Officer stating a vague information that the petitioners are likely to indulge in criminal activities causing public disorder and affecting peace in the locality, issued the impugned orders. It is clear from the above order that there is nothing mentioned in the order regarding the reason for the authority to come to a conclusion that the activities of the counter petitioners in that proceedings gave a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the authority that they are likely to cause breach of peace and disrupt public tranquility at a particular time at a particular place which requires immediate intervention of the authorities to prevent such activities and for that purpose, they have to be called upon to enter on a bond to keep good behaviour for a particular period. In that case, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate has only extracted the wordings in the printed form and extracted the case numbers in which the counter petitioner was made an accused. He had not mentioned as to how far that is relevant for the purpose of considering the question as to whether the counter petitioners have to be called upon to enter on a bond to prevent public tranquility or breach of peace in the locality. As discussed above, the very purpose of initiating proceedings under S.107 of the Code is to prevent public tranquility and breach of peace expected to be committed by the counter petitioners at a particular place at a particular time or period of time and it was intended to prevent that, that they are called upon to enter on a bond for good behaviour for a particular period, so that they can be prevented from participating in any act causing anticipated public tranquility or breach of peace in a particular place for a particular time. On a reading of the impugned order will go to show that there is nothing to infer from that order even to infer, the reason for the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate to come to such a conclusion that the counter petitioner must be asked to enter into a bond for the purpose mentioned under S.107 to 111 of the Code. The learned Magistrate has only reproduced the form without application of mind simply extracting the case numbers in which the counter petitioners were made accused. It is settled law that merely because the counter petitioner was made an accused in a case alone is not sufficient to initiate proceedings against him under S.107 of the Code. The learned Magistrate has only reproduced the form without application of mind simply extracting the case numbers in which the counter petitioners were made accused. It is settled law that merely because the counter petitioner was made an accused in a case alone is not sufficient to initiate proceedings against him under S.107 of the Code. The purpose behind the initiation of proceedings is that there is an apprehension in the mind of the authorities that a particular person or set of persons is/are likely to involve in certain activities which is likely to create breach of peace and disrupt public tranquility in a particular place and presence of such persons in that place itself will be sufficient for that purpose and it is in the public interest that has to be prevented and for that purpose the proceedings will have to be initiated on the basis of the information received by the Sub Divisional Magistrate from the police or from other reliable sources and on that basis , he will have to satisfy the existence of such imminent necessity to initiate proceedings against that particular person and called upon to execute bond on good behaviour for a particular period so as to prevent that person causing any breach of peace or public tranquility in a particular place at that particular time. But a reading of the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate will go to show that there is no application of mind by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate in all these cases, but simply extracted the form quoted some crime numbers some of them were committed some two or three years ago and issued the order without passing any order as contemplated under S.111 of the Code so as to enable the counter petitioner to meet the grounds on which the proceedings have been initiated against him and as such, the procedure adopted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery in initiating proceedings against the petitioners is illegal and without application of mind and the same are liable to be quashed as it is not passed in terms of the provisions provided under S.107 to 111 of the Code. So, the petitioners are entitled to the relief claimed in these petitions. 5. So, the petitioners are entitled to the relief claimed in these petitions. 5. Similarly, another decision of this Court Girish P. and Others v. State of Kerala and Another [2009 (4) KHC 929] has been placed to substantiate the essentials for passing such an order. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the said judgment read thus: “5. S.107 of Code of Criminal Procedure enables an executive Magistrate on receiving information that a person is likely to commit breach of 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, to require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond with or without sureties for keeping peace for such period not exceeding one year as the Magistrate thinks fit. S.111 mandates that when a Magistrate acting under S.107, deems it necessary to require any person to show cause, 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, the necessity to setforth 'the substance of the information' in the order under S.111 is not an empty formality and is with a purpose. It is to enable the person against whom the order is passed, to appear and show cause before the Magistrate that the allegations are not correct. Unless that information is furnished to the person against whom the order is passed, he cannot defend the allegation as against him. 6. Annexure I order issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate does not disclose the substance of the information received by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on which he was satisfied that proceedings under S.107 is to be initiated. The fact that petitioners are involved in Crime No. 207/2009 by itself is not a ground, to initiate proceedings, under S.107. Though past conduct may be a guide to initiate proceedings, on that ground alone proceedings cannot be initiated unless as stated by the Full Bench in Moidu's case (supra) there is an imminent breach of peace warranting initiation of proceedings under S.107 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.” 6. Though past conduct may be a guide to initiate proceedings, on that ground alone proceedings cannot be initiated unless as stated by the Full Bench in Moidu's case (supra) there is an imminent breach of peace warranting initiation of proceedings under S.107 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.” 6. A Full Bench decision of this Court in Moidu v. State of Kerala [ 1982 KLT 578 (F.B)] also has been placed to substantiate the essentials for passing an order under Section 107 of Cr.PC and the same is as under:- “The breach of the peace must be imminent to justify action under S.107. The information about the past conduct or wrongful acts of the past must not be remote or isolated but must be relatable to the present apprehension in the sense that it must have some relevance to the apprehension of likelihood of breach of the peace or disturbance of public tranquillity. The contention that past conduct should not at all be the basis for taking proceedings under S.107 does not appear to be sound. There is no justification to read such a limitation into the section. In fact it is the events of the past that would furnish material to infer about the tendencies of a person which in turn will have bearing on the likelihood of a similar conduct on his part in the present or immediate future. It cannot be said as a rule that these should not be the material furnishing the basis for action under S.107 of the Code and it may not also be said that it could be the only material. That would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case. Normally S.107 proceedings should not be used as parallel proceedings. But there may be need for proceedings under S.107 and the material that is available for action under S.107 may happen to be material on the basis of which investigation by the police is pending or trial before courts is on. Regard being had to the object of S.107 and particularly the fact that it is not intended as a punitive action but preventive even where punitive action is taken preventive action may be called for if the character of the information is such that the Magistrate would be justified in acting on such information. Regard being had to the object of S.107 and particularly the fact that it is not intended as a punitive action but preventive even where punitive action is taken preventive action may be called for if the character of the information is such that the Magistrate would be justified in acting on such information. As a rule of prudence it may be said that information about events which are the subject matter of pending prosecutions may not by themselves be relied on by the Magistrate as information sufficient to warrant an order under S.107. Ultimately it would be for the Magistrate to consider whether on an overall consideration of the facts available to him by way of information he could form the opinion that the person against whom he was proposing to take action under S.107 was likely to cause imminent breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity.” 7. The learned Public Prosecutor placed the Case Diary in Crime No.1/2023 of Vanitha Police Station, Malappuram along with the report of the Investigating Officer to justify the preliminary order. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, as per the report, involvement of the petitioner in another crime viz. Crime No.417/2022 of Malappuram Police Station also is pointed out therein and the offences alleged therein are under Sections 341, 323, 506 r/w 34 of the IPC. In the report, the investigating officer submitted that since the petitioner has involved in two crimes, proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.PC initiated against the petitioner and the preliminary order passed in consequence thereon are to be sustained. 8. Going by the legal position, it is made clear that an order under Section 107 of Cr.Pc shall be 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. 9. In the preliminary order given, the second crime as reported now by the Investigating Officer is also not referred properly. 9. In the preliminary order given, the second crime as reported now by the Investigating Officer is also not referred properly. It is interesting to note that the one and only reason for passing the order impugned as stated therein is that “the counter petitioner is involved in Crime No.1/2023 under Section 354-A(1) (i) of Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 8, 7, 10, 9(l) and 9(m) of POCSO Act of Malappuram Vanitha Police Station”. 10. Section 107 Cr.PC with caption “Security for keeping the peace in other cases”, reads as under: “107. Security for keeping the peace in other cases.-(1) When an Executive Magistrate received 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 grounds 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. Section 126 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS' for short) is the analogues to Section 107 of Cr.PC. Section 130 of BNSS is corresponding to Section 111 of Cr.PC. 12. Therefore, the very purport of the Section 107 of Cr.P.C and Section 126 of BNSS is to keep peace and public tranquillity without being breached or disturbed and for which, there must be materials to hold that a person against whom proceedings are initiated is 1) either likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or 2) to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity. As per the impugned order, in fact, no sufficient reasons stated therein that the petitioner would cause breach of peace or disturb the public tranquillity by involving in one crime. If at all the second crime reported by the Investigating Officer and pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor is taken into consideration, the same also is an offence against his wife. In this connection, it is held that mere involvement in one crime is not a reason to invoke Section 107 of Cr.P.C or Section 126 of BNSS. Similarly involvement in two crimes also is not a reason to invoke the provisions. What is required to pass a preliminary order under Section 107 r/w Section 111 of Cr.P.C and Section 126 r/w Section 130 of BNSS is involvement of multiple crimes and such repeated involvements in crimes when informed to the District Magistrate, he shall form an opinion that the person against whom such an order will be passed is 1) either likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or 2) to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity. Such an opinion shall be adorned with sufficient reasons specifically stated in the order, so as to justify the same to be digestible to all including the higher Authorities and Superior Courts. An order which lacks the above ingredients will not stand in the eye of law. Therefore, Annexure A order which lacks the above ingredients is liable to be interfered. 13. Having held so, Annexure A order impugned is found to be not sustainable and the same is quashed. It is specifically made clear that mere quashment of this preliminary order does not preclude the right of the authorities concerned to move as per law as against the petitioner under Section 107 r/w Section 111 of Cr.PC, or under Section 126 r/w Section 130 of BNSS, if such a situation comes in future. But the order shall be prettified with reasons as discussed hereinabove.