The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Magistrate must act in conformity with the provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and must not pass orders in a stereotype manner without informing himself about the legal provisions.

1. Legality and propriety of the order dated 15.09.2009 (Annexure P/ 1) passed by IInd Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Janjgir, Chhattisgarh, whereby the petitioner's revision has been dismissed, is under assail in the instant petition.

2. Brief facts as projected by the petitioner are that: one S.A. Massey lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer, PS. Janjgir, against the petitioners inter-alia alleging that the petitioners are trying to harass and 'intimidate the complainant. On the basis of complaint, an enquiry was conducted; statement of certain persons were recorded and having found that the petitioners are likely to commit the breach of the peace and disturb the public tranquility, filed Ishtgasha before the Executive Magistrate, Janjgir. The Executive Magistrate, by order dated 06.04.2009 (Annexure P/2) passed a preliminary order based on information received by him from Station House Officer, PS. Janjgir, and at the same time, also passed order under Section 116 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C. '); directed the petitioners to furnish personal bond of Rs. 5000/- and surety of like amount, and the matter was fixed for appearance of the petitioners on 22.04.2009. Ultimately, on 22.10.2009 (Annexure R/I), the proceedings were dropped. Order dated 06.04.2009, passed by the Executive Magistrate was challenged by the petitioners before the revisional court and the revisional court vide order impugned dismissed the revision. Hence this petition.

3. Shri Sushobhit Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the Magistrate without applying its mind and without acting in accordance with the provisions contained in Sections 107, 110, 111 and 116(3) of Cr.PC has passed the order impugned in a stereotype manner which is per se illegal and deserves to be quashed as it casts stigma on petitioner's reputation and character.

4. On the other hand, Shri GD Waswani, Govt. Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents supported the order impugned and would submit that as the proceedings have already been dropped, nothing survives in the petition and the same has become infructuous.

5. I have heard the counsel appearing for the petitioners, perused the order impugned and also perused the order passed by the Executive Magistrate.

6. As per Section 107 (1) of Cr.PC. when an Executive Magistrate receives information that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, 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 of such period, not exceeding one year, as the magistrate thanks fit.

7. Section 111 of Cr.P.C. provides that when a Magistrate acting under Section 107, Section 108, Section 109 or Section 110, deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such Section, he shall make an order in writing, setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed the term for which it is to be in force, and the number, character and clause of sureties (if any) required.

8. As per Section 113 of Cr.PC, if such person is not present in the court, the magistrate shall issue a summons requiring him to appear, or, when such person is in custody, a warrant directing the officer in whose custody he is to bring him before the court.

9. Section 114 of Cr.PC provides that: every summons or warrant issued under Section 113 shall be accompanied by a copy of the order made under Section 111 and such copy shall be delivered by the officer serving or executing such summons or warrant to the person served with, or arrested under, the same.

10. Section 116(1) of Cr.PC provides that, when an order under Se