M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.

1. Petitioner, suspected to be involved in Crime No. 233/2009 of Kalamassery Police Station, registered for offences under Sections 120B and 395 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kalamassery Police Station, was summoned to Kalamassery Police Station on 11.2.2009. On the allegation that while so petitioner attempted to commit suicide, Crime No. 262/2009 of Thrikkakara Police Station was registered for offences under Sections 353 and 309 of Indian Penal Code.

2. Petitioner approached Sessions Court, Ernakulam for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, by filing Crl. M.C. No. 315/2009. On 18.2.2009, he was granted anticipatory bail on conditions. He was directed to appear before the Investigating Officer in Crime No. 233/2009 on 20.2.2009 at 11 a.m. after his discharge from the hospital, where he was undergoing treatment and the Investigating Officer was directed to produce him before the Magistrate on the same day at 4 p.m. and Magistrate was directed to release him on bail, on executing bond for Report. One lakh with two solvent sureties each for the like sum and petitioner was directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on every alternate days for one month and thereafter once in a week till the final report is filed. In Crime No. 262/2009 also, petitioner was directed to be released on bail, on executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, when he is produced before the Magistrate by the Investigating Officer. Petitioner was produced before the Magistrate on 20.2.2009 and was released on bail on executing a bond for Rupees One lakh with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Magistrate.

3. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fort Kochi, based on the report dated 28.3.2009 submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kalamassery Police Station, issued Annexure-III order dated 22.4.2009 under Section 111 of Code of Criminal Procedure, exercising the powers under Section 107, directing the petitioner to appear in person on 19.5.2009 and show cause why he shall not be required to enter into a bond for Rs. 10,000/- and also to furnish security for the said amount by a bond of two sureties for the like sum for a term of one year. The order shows that based on the report submitted by Inspector of Police, Sub Divisional Magistrate was satisfied that proceedings under Section 107 of Code of Criminal Procedure is to be initiated, as it is likely to result in breach of peace on account of the petitioner. This petition is filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-III order and the proceedings initiated under Section 107 of Code of Criminal Procedure contending that it is an abuse of process of the court.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

5. Learned Counsel pointed out that under Annexure-I order, Sessions Court directed the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer and directed the Investigating Officer to produce the petitioner before the Magistrate on the same day and directed the Magistrate to release the petitioner on bail on executing a bond for Rupees One lakh with two solvent sureties each for the like sum with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer on every alternate days for one month and thereafter, once in a week and in such circumstances, Sub Divisional Magistrate should have found that there was no occasion to cause any breach of peace at the instance of the petitioner, as the conditions imposed by the Sessions Judge are more than sufficient to satisfy the conditions provided under Section 107 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Counsel also pointed out that apart from recording satisfaction, Annexure-III order does not reveal the basis on which satisfaction was arrived at or the contents of the report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police, based on which, the Sub Divisional Magistrate has arrived at his satisfaction. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Madhu Limaye v. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr : AIR 1971 SC 2486 [LQ/SC/1970/448] , learned Counsel argued that when Annexure-III order is the foundation on which the proceedings were initiated and the order does not disclose the information which petitioner has to meet when he appears, it is liable to be quashed. Learned Counsel also relied on the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Mukthar v. Sub Inspector of Police 2002 (1) KLT 15 (C. No. 15) and submitted that as in that case, by Annexure-III order, petitioner cannot gather on what information and on what basis the Sub Divisional Magistrate has taken action and therefore, the entire proceedings is vitiated and is to be quashed.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that Sub Divisional Magistrate was justified in proceeding under Section 107 and issuing Annexure-III preliminary order under Section 111 of Code of Criminal Procedure, based on the report of the Sub Inspector of Police.

7. Annexure-III order does not disclose the contents of the report based on which the Sub Divisional Magistrate expressed satisfaction to invoke the power under Section 107 of Code of Criminal Procedure requiring petitioner to appear and show cause why he shall not execute a bond. It does not show what was the allegation raised in the complaint against the petitioner, based on which the Sub Divisional Magistrate found that it is necessary to require the petitioner to execute a bond. As declared by the Apex Court in Madhu Limayes case (supra), when it is under Annexure-III foundation, the entire case is built up, Sub Divisional Magistrate is bound to disclose the entire facts so that petitioner could resist the proceedings when he appears. Apex Court held:

The procedure begins with Section 112. It requires that the Magistrate acting under Section 107 shall make an order in writing, setting, forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond, the term for which it is to be in force and the number, character and class of sureties (if any) required. Since the person to be proceeded against has to show cause, it is but natural that he must know the grounds for apprehending a breach of the peace or disturbance of the public tranquility at his hands. Although the section speaks of the substance of the information, it does not mean the order should not be full. It may not repeat the information bodily but it must give proper notice of what has moved the Magistrate to take the action. This order is the foundation of the jurisdiction and the word substance means the essence of the most important parts of the information.

As found by this Court in Mukthars case (supra), when Annexure-III order does not disclose any detail, which is mandatory, it can only be quashed. Moreover, it is clear that more than one month prior to issuance of Annexure-III order, Sessions Judge directed the petitioner to execute a bond for Rupees One lakh with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, directing the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer on every alternate days for one month and thereafter once in a week. The proceedings was seen initiated just within forty days from that date. There was absolutely no necessity to require the petitioner to execute a bond, as provided under Section 107 of Code of Criminal Procedure, when learned Sessions Judge directed the petitioner to execute a bond and if any act as apprehended by the Sub divisional Magistrate was committed, the bail could have been cancelled and petitioner could have been kept in custody.

In such circumstances, petition is allowed. Annexure-III order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fort Kochi is quashed.