Heard Sri. C.V. Nagesh, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. B.T. Venkatesh, learned SPPII, who takes notice for respondent – State. Perused the records.

2. The petitioner has sought for quashing of the entire proceedings in Case No. MAG/CR/(107 CRPC)/32/1415 dated 24.7.2014 on the file of the Taluka Executive Magistrate (“TEM” for short), Bangalore East Taluk, Krishnarajapura, Bangalore.

3. Sri C.V. Nagesh, learned Senior counsel fairly submitted that though the order of the TEM is revisable, this court can entertain the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., considering the glaring errors committed by the TEM and also to set some standards as to how the Taluka Executive Magistrates have to deal with the matter under the relevant provisions.

4. Learned senior counsel brought to my notice that the Order dated 24.7.2014 is a computerized order keeping open certain blanks. In the impugned order except filling up the case number, date and the provision of law and putting his signature, nothing has been filled up done by the TEM. Even without applying his mind regarding the facts of the case and the legal requirements as contemplated u/s.111 of Cr.PC the TEM has issued the Order. He also brought to my notice that the said Order/Communication was issued on 24.7.2014 and on the same day, the petitioner was produced before the TEM and he was released on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/and the case was posted for further proceedings. The whole proceeding is vitiated by serious incurable irregularities which amounts to illegalities. Hence, he prayed for quashing of the said Order/Communication.

5. I have carefully perused the said Order passed by the TEM. It is just like a cyclostyled Order (computerized format). The TEM has filled up only the case number, under which provision the case has been initiated and also the date, keeping open the remaining blanks unfilled, put his signature. But, nothing is there to indicate that the TEM has applied his mind before issuing such an Order.

6. It is worth to refer some of the important decisions in this regard.

(1) Madhu Limaye Vs State. AIR 1971 S.C.2486. Before initiating a proceeding under this section, (107 Cr.P.C.) the Magistrate should be satisfied that such proceedings should be started and he should record reasons for his satisfaction and issue notice to the person sought to be proceeded against. Where a magistrate called for police report not satisfied with the petition filed by the opposite party, it shows that he was not satisfied. If he was not satisfied no proceeding could be initiated. The Magistrate cannot initiate proceedings on a bare perusal of the complaint or by only examining the complainant on oath, the subjective satisfaction of the Magistrate is necessary. The words used in the section “Substance” means essence of the most important parts of the information.

(2) M. Bhoja Hegde Vs Lokayya Poojalri. 1961 Mys.L.J. 30

(3) Chinnaya Chettiar Vs state of Musore ; 1968 (2) Mys. L.J. 551.

(4) Lingayath Ullur Doddangouda Vs State of Mysore. 1971 (1) Mys.L.J. S.N.175

(5) Chand Sab Vs State of Karnataka. 1980(2) Kar.L.J. S.N. 112.

(6) Veerappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka 1981 Crl. L.J. NoC 204 (kar)

Order under sec 111 shall contain in specific concrete terms the nature of information which would show that a person is likely to commit a breach of peace or disturb the public tranquility or to do any wrongful act which may have such results. Where the recitals in the orders show that the Magistrate has not applied his mind to the matter, if the order is mechanical, his order under the section cannot be sustained.

(7) Shivaputrappa and others V/s State of Karnataka. 1977(2) I.L.R. 812. As the very foundation of the preliminary order under the section, on receipt of information, the Magistrate has to formulate opinion of his own and express such opinion the order made otherwise is liable to be quashed.

(8) State of Mysore Vs Dodda Eranna 197