JUDGMENT

Gupta, J. - This is a revision against an order under Section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Karchana, on the 24th of February, 1968. The sole ground pressed in support of this revision is that the order does not comply with the requirement of Section 112, Cr. P. C. inasmuch as it does not set forth the substance of the information received by the learned Magistrate. This contention appears to be well founded.

2. The order of the learned Magistrate which is to be found on the order sheet runs as follows :-

"Received the Chalani report from P. S. Naini today. Register a case under section 1071117, Cr. P. C. and issue notice under section 112, Cr. P. C. to the G. Ps. for 3-3-1968."

3. It is obvious that the above order contains no indication even of the information received by the learned Magistrate, and this circumstance, by itself, is sufficient to vitiate the order as not complying with the requirements contained in Section 112, Cr. P. C.

4. I have also looked into the record of the proceedings before the learned Magistrate. The relevant portion of the notice issued in compliance with the order of the learned Magistrate set forward the substance of the information as follows :-

"..... on account of a dispute regarding Mahapalika land situated near Naini Post Office ........"

5. The above recital is far from satisfying the requirement that the Magistrate shall make an order in writing setting forth the substance of the information received. A perusal of the report containing the information on the basis of which the learned Magistrate passed the above order makes it dear that the information that the dispute between the parties related to "Mahapalika land situated near Naini Post Office" was wholly insufficient to convey to the applicant, even vaguely, the substance of the information received by the learned Magistrate. The report received by the learned Magistrate was to the effect that the applicant had taken a shop on rent from certain persons at Rs. 130/- per month with an agreement that when the landlord would marry his son the applicant Gauri Shanker would pay to the landlord a sum of Rs. 4,000/- as advance rent, that if he did not do so; the landlord would be entitled to get the shop vacated, and that even though the marriage of the landlord's son had been fixed the applicant had not paid Rs. 4,000/- to the landlord with the result that altercation took place between the parties and the relations between them had become tense. It was next stated in the report that a plot of land belonging to the Nagar Mahapalika which had been in possession of a member of the group to which the landlord belonged had been put into the possession of the applicant, that in that connection some altercation had taken place and some stay orders had been passed by the civil court and the 8th of March, 1968, had been fixed in the court of the Munsif for hearing of some matter, that the relations between the parties had become strained with the result that there was great apprehension of a breach of peace taking place any moment. This, in brief, is the substance of the information contained in the report which led the learned Magistrate to pass the order cited earlier. The relevant part of the notice issued for service on the applicant, among others, has also been reproduced earlier, and it is manifest that scant regard has been shown for the law which requires the learned Magistrate to incorporate the substance of the information received by him in the order itself which he passes under Section 112, Cr. P. C. This sort of omission appears to be frequent and the result is that proceedings for preservation of peace, which require to be dealt with on an urgent footing, are held up on account of failure, on the part of the Magistrate concerned to take the trouble of incorporating, in the order under Section 112, Cr. P. C. passed by him, the substance of the information received by him. The very