JUDGMENT
S.P. Sinha, J.
1. This application is directed against an order drawing up a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as the Code) and calling upon the petitioners as second party to the said proceeding, to show cause as to why they should not be ordered to execute a bond of Rs. 2000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to keep the peace for a period of one year. The notice which had been sent to the petitioners has been appended to the application marked as Annexure 1. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, on reference to the said notice, has urged that the notice was in complete violation of Section III of the Code, inasmuch as it did not at all give the substance of the information which the petitioners were required to explain, and consequently the drawing up of the proceeding under Section 107 of the Code must be quashed. I think the contention is valid and must be accepted. The notice in question reads as under:
Whereas I am satisfied from the petition filed by the 1st party and also from hearing his lawyer that the members of the 2nd party are at daggers drawn with the 1st party on account of previous enmity. Members of the 2nd party have formed a group of undesirable persons’ and are creating troubles and mischief in various ways and threatening the 1st party with dire consequence for which serious breach of peace is apprehended within the local limits of my jurisdiction. Breach of peace cannot be prevented unless preventive measures are taken against the members of the 2nd party.
On a perusal of this notice I do not think that the petitioner could at all make out as to what exactly the case against them was-who were the undesirable persons with whom the members of the second party had formed a group; in what way they were creating troubles and mischief, where when and how? All these matters have been left vague in the notice. In such a view of the matter, the contention that the notice was not in accordance with the requirements of Section III is valid and must be accepted.
I think it is high time that the magistracy should appreciate the necessity of being specific in their orders. This Court has on several occasions pointed out the lacunae in notices under Section 107 and has even given guidelines as to the contents of a notice under the provisions of Section III of the Code. I may once again indicate that the substance of the information always means the facts which lead to the conclusion that a certain party to the proceeding is required to be bound down under Section 107. If the allegation be of creating troubles, the notice must specify about the troubles created; or if the allegation be of forming group with undesirable persons and threatening the opponent with dire consequences, the facts must indicate the names of the undesirable persons and the specific threats given on specific occasions. Merely stating that a person in company with undesirable persons was creating troubles and mischief in various ways and threatening the other side with dire consequences is an absolutely vague allegation which cannot be answered.
2. Having regard to the discussions made above, I think the proceeding under Section 107 of the Code, based as it is on the vagueness of allegations must be quashed. The application is allowed.