Mary Joseph, J.

1. The counter petitioner in M.C. No. 165/2014/C on the file of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kochi has moved this petition under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C., for short) seeking to quash Annexure A1 preliminary order issued on 30.03.2014 against him pursuant to proceedings initiated under S. 107 Cr.P.C. By issuing Annexure A1 order, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate directed the petitioner to attend in person before him at 11 a.m. on 08.04.2014 and to show cause why he should not be required to enter into a bond for Rs.25,000/- and also furnish security by executing a bond with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, for keeping peace for a period of one year. Annexure A1 order is sought to be quashed on the reason that it is improper and illegal.

2. Smt. C.N. Charisma the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Madhu Ben, the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State are heard in detail.

3. Smt. Charisma contented on behalf of the petitioner that it was the 2nd respondent who is none other than the Sub-Inspector of Police, Town North Police Station, Ernakulam who had recommended the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to initiate action against the petitioner under S. 107 Cr.P.C. and reported pendency of C.C. No. 1349 of 2001 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Ernakulam and Crime No. 30/2014 registered at Ernakulam North Police Station as the basis for the proposal to initiate action. According to the counsel, C.C. No. 1349/2001 was originated from Crime No. 134/2000 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station registered for the offences under Ss. 324 and 326 r/w S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner who faced trial in the case was acquitted for the offences charged against him vide judgment dated 30.09.2005. It is urged by the counsel that Crime No. 30/2014 was registered against the petitioner and three others alleging commission of the offences punishable under Ss. 143, 147, 148, 341, 294(b) and 323 r/w S. 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner is the 2nd accused in the crime. According to the counsel, on 15.01.2014 the passengers travelled in a taxi car driven by him had an altercation with a person which culminated in the physical assault of the latter. He was the driver of the car at the relevant time and despite his non involvement in the alleged transaction he was implicated into the crime as the second accused. According to him his implication into the crime as accused was without any proper investigation being held in the matter. He obtained anticipatory bail on 28.01.2014 vide order in Crl.M.C. No. 131/2014 from the Court of Sessions, Ernakulam, the true copy of which is appended with as Annexure A2. It is vehemently contended that the petitioner is a driver leading a peaceful life in the locality and his name is included in the goonda list by the respondent unnecessarily, despite the fact that crimes have not been registered against him till 2014. It is also urged that in view of the contentions raised supra the impugned order will not sustain in the eye of law being incorrect, illegal and improper.

4. Annexure A1 is the proceedings of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under challenge. It was initiated under S. 111 Cr.P.C., which reads:-

"111. Order to be made.--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 class of sureties (if any) required."

5. Annexure A1 is to the following effect:-

"Whereas information has been received in this court as per the reference read above that the counter petitioner named above is committing acts leading to breach of peace within the jurisdiction of this court which are likely t