An order issued under Section 112, CrPC, must contain the substance of the information received by the Magistrate, providing specific and tangible facts to inform the accused of the accusations against them.

RAY, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application by the petitioners for quashing a proceeding initiated under Section 107, Criminal P. C. The order of the Magistrate which ia based upon a police report reads :

". . . . that you Bankanidhi Subudhi and 58 others of Sanapadar, 2nd party indulging in acts of highhanded- ness, violence, harassment, etc. , towards the first party Bhagirathi Mohapatra and that your activities are likely to cause imminent breach of place or disturb the public tranquillity in the local limits of the jurisdiction of this Court. You are hereby ordered to show cause why you should not be ordered to execute a bond for Rs. 1000 each with one surety in the like amount for keep:ng peace for a period of one year. "

This order has been made under the provisions of Section 112, Criminal P. C. The section reads :

"when a Magistrate acting under Section 107, deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section, he shall make an order in writing, setting forth the substanae 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. "

The question involved is whether the order above contains the substance of the information received.

( 2 ) THE petitioners' case is that the contents of the order are too vague to give them requisite notice of the substance of information received by the magistrate, and therefore, the order is void and of no legal effect. In other words, it is contended that the proceeding is not lawfully and validly initiated and should, therefore be quashed. This proceeding was initiated on 5-9-1949 and has been dragging on till now. On perusal of the different orders already passed in the ordersheet of the case, it appears that the proceeding was first started in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at Khurda, but as one or more of the accused persons were detained in the Puri Jail as security prisoners, the accused persons had to suffer in the Khurda Court till 21-7-50 without the proceeding progressing beyond examination and partial cross-examination of the first party, Bhagirathi Mohapatra. Later, in order to enable the detenu accused to attend the Court, the proceeding was transferred to the Court of the magistrate at Puri where it is still pending. The petition to this Court was admitted on 24-8-50, but stay of further proceedings was not ordered. Under the circumstances, one would normally expect that the proceeding should have been procfeded with and the trial should have concluded by now. It is difficult to understand why the trial has not been pushed on. I understand from a representation made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that all the same, the petitioners have been attending the Puri Court from date to date. This unnecessary dragging of a large number of casea in this manner reminds one of the old saying 'what is play to you is death to us'. I would invite the attention of the authority, namely, the District Magistrate, the Eevenue commissioner and the Chief Secretary who will look into the matter and see that such protraction of proceedings to the great harassment of a large number of people does not recur in future.

( 3 ) COMING to the question at issue and considering that the matter is of some general importance I have tried to study the matter carefully and ascertain the views of various High Courts on the point whether lack of strict compliance with the provisions of Section 112, Cr. P. C. , namely failure to set forth the substance of the information, would render the proceeding void and wherever such lacuna occurs, the accused persons shall, as a matter of right, be entitled to have the proceeding quashed. I have been ably assisted by the learned counsel for both sides and it has been brought to my notice that a decision of a single Judge of this Court also has added to the difficulty of the problem so far as the Courts under the juried