unassailable and hence, the petitions have to be allowed on these two grounds alone. The first is, that the learned Magistrate has passed a common order against the members of the two parties and called upon them to face a joint enquiry. This is clearly not in accordance with law. It has to be pointed out that under subsection (5) of Section 116 Crl.P.C. a joint enquiry can be held only in respect of members or association of the same group; but not against the members of two rival groups. The second illegality is, that the Magistrate while passing the preliminary order, has called upon the counter petitioners to execute interim bonds each in a sum of Rs.1,000/- with two sureties each in like sum. The Supreme Court has clearly held in Madhu Limaye v. Ved Murti, (1971) 2 SCR 742: AIR 1971 SC 2481: (1971 Cri LJ 1715) that before an order for execution of interim bond is passed, the enquiry must have commenced and there must be prima facie material before the Magistrate to justify an order being passed for execution of interim bonds pending completion of enquiry. In this case, even before the enquiry has started, the Magistrate has passed the order for execution of interim bonds and this is patently against law. Hence, on these two grounds alone, the order deserves to be quashed.
