JUDGMENT Edgley, J. - These two Rules arise with reference to certain proceedings taken by the Petitioner's wife under sec. 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also with reference to some further proceedings drawn up against the Petitioner under sec. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears that on the 6th of June, 11)42, the Petitioner was called upon to show cause why he should not pay maintenance to his wife. On the 20th June, 1942, he showed cause and in doing so he made certain allegations against Mr. G. C. Mallik, Circle Officer of Sonamukhi. This gentleman thereafter wrote to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on the 30th of June, 1942, and accused the Petitioner Anandmoy Karmakar of having cast a slur on his character by filing a false and malicious statement in connection with the case under sec. 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he further stated that Ananda was carrying on a campaign of vilification and threats against him. In the concluding portion of his letter Mr. Mallik slated that Ananda was a dangerous person and often told people that he would " teach a lesson " to the Circle Officer. On receipt of this letter the Sub-Divisional Officer wrote an endorsement thereon to the effect that he would take action later and we find that, orr the 3rd of July, 1942, he drew up proceedings against Anandamoy Karmakar under the provisions of sec. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. These proceedings were amplified on the 18th of July, 1942, when fresh proceedings were drawn up and, on the 2Cth of July, 1942, the learned Magistrate directed the Petitioner to execute an interim bond for Rs. 200 (rupees two hundred only). 2. In the first place, Mr. Mukherjee on behalf of the Petitioner asks that the proceedings under sec. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be quashed. We are now concerned merely with the proceedings as they stood after amendment on the 18th of July, 1942. Two grounds are mentioned as justifying this proceeding. The first is that Anandamoy Karmakar had cast a slur on the character and activity of the Circle Officer in an application made to the Sub-Divisional Officer in connection with a case under sec. Two grounds are mentioned as justifying this proceeding. The first is that Anandamoy Karmakar had cast a slur on the character and activity of the Circle Officer in an application made to the Sub-Divisional Officer in connection with a case under sec. 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the second is that Anandamay Karmakar was carrying on a campaign of vilification against the Mr. Circle Officer. The order of the learned Magistrate, dated the 18th of July, 1942, contained no reference to the concluding portion of the letter from the Circle Officer where the latter had accused Anandamay Karmakar of uttering certain threats against him. As far as we can see, the proceedings such as they were, are merely based on the written statement which was filed by Ananda in connection with the proceedings under sec. -188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We think that sec. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been misused in this case and the grounds mentioned in the order, dated the 18th of July, 1942, were not in themselves sufficient to enable the Magistrate to form an opinion that there was a likelihood of breach of peace. We, therefore, direct that the proceedings under sec. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which have been drawn up against the Petitioner be quashed. 3. As regards the case under sec. 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we think that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate will feel some embarrasment in trying this case after the orders which he has drawn up in connection with the proceedings under sec. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and we therefore direct that this case be transferred to some other Magistrate at Bankura who may be deputed for this purpose by the District Magistrate. The result, therefore, is that the two Rules are made absolute. Lodge, J. I agree.