JUDGMENT 1. A rule was granted in this case to consider the propriety of an order binding down the Petitioners to keep the peace. It appears that the complainant filed a petition before the Magistrate stating that be was in possession of certain land and that, he was unable to go upon this land in consequence of the threats of the Petitioners who are endeavouring to oust him from the land in question. Upon this proceedings were taken under sec. 107, Cr.P.C. 2. The Magistrate has found that the story of the complainant was true; that he was in fact in possession of the land and that the Petitioners had been endeavouring to oust him and had threatened him to assault him and his people if they came upon the land. 3. Ordinarily, where two or more persons are disputing with regard to the possession of land and there is a likelihood of a breach of the peace, the more appropriate procedure is that provided by Chap. XII of the CPC which deals with disputes as to immoveable property. And in this case it is objected that inasmuch as the likelihood of a breach of the peace was in respect of certain land as to which, there was a dispute, proceedings ought to have been taken under sec. 145 and not under sec. 107 of the Code. 4. Having regard to the information set forth in the complaint made to the Magistrate we are of opinion that the Magistrate was justified in instituting proceedings under sec. 107. The complainant alleged that the Petitioners had threatened to use violence to him if he should go upon the land of which he was in possession. Although the Magistrate has perhaps gone more fully into the question of possession than the circumstances of the case demanded we cannot say that he was wrong In doing so. He came to the conclusion that the complainant was in possession and his story of the threatened violence was true. 5. A number of cases have been quoted to us in which proceedings taken under sec. 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code have been set aside on the ground that in the special circumstance of these cases the more appropriate procedure was that under sec. 145 of the Code. 5. A number of cases have been quoted to us in which proceedings taken under sec. 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code have been set aside on the ground that in the special circumstance of these cases the more appropriate procedure was that under sec. 145 of the Code. But it has never, so far as we know, been held that in a case of this kind the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to proceed tinder see. 107 is ousted by the fact that it appeared in the course of the enquiry that the dispute was one relating to the possession of land and that the apprehended breach of the peace was in consequence of that dispute. In the circumstances of the present case we are unable to say that the procedure adopted was not the proper procedure and we therefore discharge the rule.