P.N. Prakash, J.

The circumstances under which this Division Bench came to be constituted for deciding the issues arising in this reference require to be recapitulated, for which, it may be necessary to briefly state the factual matrix.

[a] On 24.05.2015, two groups, categorised as "A" party and "B" party, lodged complaints against each other before the Inspector of Police, Gandhikuppam Police Station, based on which, petition enquiries were being conducted in CSR Nos. 74 of 2015 and 75 of 2015. According to the members of "A" party, the land in Survey No.562/2AB measuring 1.38 acres belongs to them and the members of "B" party are contending that the said land belongs to Bharathamatha Temple and were asserting their right to hold the Mahabaratham festival. The police, apprehending a breach of peace, registered an FIR in Cr.No.202 of 2015 and forwarded a report to the Executive Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer for initiating proceedings u/s 107 Cr.P.C. Based on the report submitted by the police, the Executive Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer passed an order on 22.06.2015 u/s 111 Cr.P.C. calling upon the members of "A" party to show cause, either in person or through an Advocate, as to why they should not be directed to give a bond for Rs. 10,000/- for a period of six months.

[b] Challenging the said order dated 22.0.2015, the members of "A" party filed Crl.O.P. No. 17684 of 2015. At the time of admission, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in Rajaram Reddiar and 17 others v. State, by Inspector of Police, Udumalpet, [1994 (1) LW (Crl.) 314], wherein, a learned single Judge has held that ".....One instance by itself cannot be occasion for initiating the proceedings u/s 107 Cr.P.C." The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in Somasundaram and 10 others v. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharapuram and another [2002 (1) CTC 72], wherein, it has been held as follows:-

"........6. An order passed under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. has to satisfy a double test:

(1) It must set forth the substance of the information received as well as the amount of the bond to be executed, the terms of which it is to be in force and the number, character and class of sureties (if any required).

(2) Besides, the order must also reflect that the Magistrate has assessed the truth of the information and the need for taking action under Section 107 Cr.P.C. for preservation of peace and order ...."

[c] One of us [P.N. PRAKASH, J.], doubted the correctness of the aforesaid dicta and sought a reference to a Division Bench for an authoritative pronouncement on the issue, pursuant to which, this Bench was constituted by the orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice. The questions of law formulated for consideration are as follows:

"(a) Is a previous incident a sine qua non for initiating Section 107 Cr.P.C. proceedings?

(b) Can proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. be initiated even before an incident that is likely to disturb the peace or public tranquillity takes place?

(c) Should a show cause order issued under Section 107 Cr.P.C. reflect that the Magistrate has assessed the truth of the information and the need for taking action?

(d) Can a show cause order under Section 107 Cr.P.C. be per se subjected to judicial review?"

2. Heard Mr. C.R. Malarvannan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. G. Karthikeyan, learned counsel who assisted the Court and Mr. C. Emalias, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

3. Maintenance of public order and tranquillity had always received the utmost attention of the colonial powers even during the administration of India by the East India Company. This is evident from the preface to the A.D. 1802 Regulation XXXII (Madras Regulations), which reads as under:-

"A REGULATION for prohibiting affrays respecting disputed boundaries in the British Territories subject to the Presidency of Fort St.George.

It havi