ORDER
G.P. Sinha, J.
1. This revision by Sardar Kartar Singh and six others seeks to challenge the validity of the order dated 21.3.1972 whereby the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Patna City has drawn up a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter referred to as the Code) against members of both sides. The matter seems to have arisen in the following circumstances.
2. Sita Ram Khatri (opposite party here) filed a petition before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 21.3.1972 making various allegations of high-handedness at the hands of these petitioners. In paragraph 8 of that petition he alleged that in the night of 20th March, 1972 at about 8 p.m. when he was sitting in his office the members of the opposite party came in and threatened him of dire consequences. He further alleged that they were bent upon creating trouble and unless immediate action was taken there would be serious breach of the peace. On these allegations the petitioner requested the Magistrate to bind them down under Section 107 of the Code. Learned Magistrate heard the petitioner’s lawyer on 31.3.1972 and after feeling satisfied that there was danger of breach of the peace and disturbance of public tranquillity between the parties he drew up a proceeding under Section 107 against both directing them to show cause by 12.4.1972 why they should not be made to execute bonds of Rs. 1000/- with two sureties of the like amount for keeping peace for a period of one year.
3. It is admitted that in pursuance of this order show cause notices were sent and served on the parties. Before filing their show cause the petitioners filed this revision and obtained order staying further proceedings in this proceeding.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has urged that the Magistrate’s order is bad inasmuch as it has failed to comply with the mandatory provision of Section 112 of the Code. According to him the Magistrate was bound while making that order to set forth the substance of the information received. Since he had failed to do so the impugned order must be struck down and the proceeding dropped.
5. It is not disputed by the other side that the impugned order dated 21.3.1972, as it stands, is not proper as it does not set forth the substance of the information and in that way it can be said to be bad. He, however, contends that though this order did not mention the substance of the information received but in the notices of the proceeding served on the parties the relevant substance has been duly noted. To prove this, learned Counsel for the’ opposite party read the notice copy on the record. In this notice there is clear recital that in the petition filed by the petitioner it had been alleged that on 20.3.1972 when at night the petitioner was sitting in his office the members of the opposite party came there and held out several threats to him and that after looking into the petition and hearing the petitioner’s counsel about it the Magistrate felt satisfied that there was apprehension of breach of the peace and disturbance of public tranquillity between the parties within his jurisdiction and accordingly he ordered for action under Section 107 of the Code against them. In the second part of this notice he mentioned the amount and duration of the security bonds calling upon them to show cause by a date fixed why they should not be made to execute the bonds.
6. As the language of the notice stands, whose service on these petitioners in the proceeding is admitted, it cannot be said that it suffers from the defect of non-mention of the substance of the information as enjoined under Section 112 of the Code. On the other hand, it does give the gist of the information as lodged with’ the Magistrate which was in the above petition filed by him.
7. According to these petitioners, since the Magistrate’s order D/- 21.3.1972 which was the foundation of his jurisdiction to move in the matter had failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 112 regarding the substance of his information its incorporation in the notices sent to the parties in pursuance thereof could not cure this fatal defect and the impugned order has got to be quashed notwithstanding the notice. I am unable to uphold this contention. The petitioners have been apprised of this accusation against them through this notice and not through the order recorded by the Magistrate in his order-sheet. So the vital document on this point for the petitioners would be this notice. The purpose of incorporating the substance of the information is to let the person proceeded against to know the charge against him so that he can answer it in his show Cause. As such, once the notice served on him sets forth that substance its absence in the order passed on the order sheet is not very material. What is required to be known to the person concerned regarding the accusation to enable him to answer it in court is in his hand in the notice and that. I think would settle the issue. If the notice is also found lacking in this respect then the matter would stand on a different footing. This is, however, not so in the instant case. The defect, if any, on this point is to be found in the order of the Magistrate as it subsists in the order sheet. But that is immaterial, to my mind, in the face of the notice where this defect is found rectified.
8. It has further been urged that from a perusal of the challenged order it would be manifest that the Magistrate has not applied his mind to the subject but just passed it in a mechanical way, which makes it wholly vulnerable. It is, however, difficult to accept this accusation against the Magistrate. Under Section 107 of the Code when a Magistrate is informed that any person is likely to commit breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity and if in his opinion there is sufficient ground for proceeding he may require such person to show cause why he should not be made to execute a bond for keeping peace. This clearly shows that all that is required for the Magistrate to move under this section is to receive an information and then to form an opinion as to whether there is sufficient ground for his proceeding in the matter, and, as soon as these two conditions are satisfied he can easily take such an action. In the instant case, as already observed, the Magistrate had a petition before him as filed by the petitioner alleging highhanded acts of the other side vis-a-vis him. The Magistrate On receiving that petition heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and thereafter initiated this proceeding on being prima facie satisfied about its necessity. Though in his order he has not mentioned about his perusal of that petition filed before him, but in the notice, as already mentioned, he has referred to his perusal of that petition as also hearing of counsel of the petitioner. When on the information received the Magistrate felt satisfied that there was sufficient reason for him to take an action under this section the matter ended there and it will not perhaps be correct to say that he has initiated this action in a routine wav without applying his judicial mind to it.
9. The decisions in Hasibuddin v. State of Bihar 1971 BLJR 508 and of Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate Monghyr , relied upon by the petitioners for getting the impugned order invalidated do not appear to be helpful to them. With great respect, I am unable to treat them as authority for the proposition that even though the substance of the information finds mentioned in the notices served on the parties but it is lacking in the order passed in the ordersheet the latter must be quashed and the proceeding dropped.
10. In view of the above findings that though in the Magistrate’s order substance of the information received was actually not incorporated as required by Section 112 but it did find place in the notices which have been served on the parties pursuant to that order I am unable to treat this proceeding being bad and liable to be set aside for that reason. For these reasons, this matter does not call for any interference at this stage and the proceeding must be allowed to continue and conclude in the usual course. Accordingly this application fails and is dismissed.