ORDER
1. The counter petitioners in M.C. No. 29/93 on the file of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kovilpatti, have filed this petition under S. 482, Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in the above case and to quash the same.
2. Short facts are : The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kovilpatti, has passed the impugned order under S. 107, Cr.P.C. acting under S. 107, Cr.P.C. on 21-6-1993 against the counter petitioners, in which he has directed them to appear before him on 21-6-1993 at 10 a.m. and show cause as to why they should not be ordered to execute bond for Rs. 5,000/- with two sureties for the like sum each and to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year and also why they should not be ordered to execute interim bond till the disposal of the case.
3. I have heard Miss N. S. Nappinai for the petitioners. She would submit that the impugned order is infirm for the following two reasons viz., (i) the order acting under S. 107, Cr.P.C. cannot ask the counter petitioners to show cause as to why the bond should not be executed to be of good behaviour; and (ii) interim bond cannot be directed to be executed. I have heard Mr. Raja, learned Government Advocate on the above aspects. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel.
4. To consider the two submissions, it would be necessary to extract S. 107(1), Cr.P.C. which reads as follows :
“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 proceedings, 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.”
The plain language of S. 107(1), Cr.P.C. would go to show that the nature of bond directed to be executed can be only for keeping the peace. But, in the instant case, the impugned order shown that the petitioners were directed to show cause as to why they should not be ordered to execute a bond to keep the peace and “be of good behaviour”. The direction to execute a bond to be of good behaviour is beyond the scope of S. 107(1), Cr.P.C. Hence, it is infirm.
5. That apart, S. 107 does not give power to the learned Magistrate to direct the petitioners to show cause why they should not be ordered to execute interim bonds. That again is beyond the powers of S. 107(1), Cr.P.C. Since the impugned order directs to show cause why the bond should not be executed to be of good behaviour and since the show cause was regarding execution of interim bond also, it is vitiated and liable to be quashed.
6. In the result, the petition is allowed and all further proceedings in M.C. No. 29/93 on the file of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kovilpatti shall stand quashed.
7. Petition allowed.