Judgment Kanhaiyaji, J. 1. This application in revision is against the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Aurangabad, dated the 14th September, 1968, dropping a proceeding under Sec.107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the opposite parties. 2. On a report of the Deo Police for action under Sec.107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the opposite parties, the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate passed the following order on the 21st August, 1968: ". . . .I am satisfied from the Police report that there is an apprehension of breach of peace at the hands of O. Ps. I hereby draw up proceeding Under Sec.107, Cr. P. C. against the O. Ps. to show cause on 14-9-68, as to why they should not be ordered to execute bonds of Rs. 1000/-each with one surety of like amount to keep peace for a period of one year." On the same day (21-8-1968), a protest petition was filed on behalf of the opposite parties for verification of the Police report. The Sub-divisional Magistrate perused the record of another proceeding under Sec.107 of the Code (Case No. 485M of 1968), in which at least five members of the opposite parties were being proceeded with by his order dated the 22nd August, 1968, sent the report of the Police to the Divisional Inspector of Police for scrutiny in the light of the report submitted by him in the other case. In the meantime, however, he stayed the issue of notices to the Opposite Parties. The Divisional Inspector of Police reported that only six persons against whom the proceeding under Sec.107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was already going on should be ordered to execute bends under Sec.117 (3) of the Code. The learned Magistrate heard both the parties and passed the following order on 14-9-1968: "Since another 107 proceeding is going on between both the parties, there is no need of keeping this proceeding alive. This is dropped." However, he ordered the opposite parties to show cause why they should not be asked to execute ad interim bond in the other proceeding. 3 The main point urged before me is one of law. Mr. Gorakh Singh appearing for the petitioner has submitted that after passing the order under Sec.107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to drop the proceeding unless the stage of Sec.119 of the Code reaches. 3 The main point urged before me is one of law. Mr. Gorakh Singh appearing for the petitioner has submitted that after passing the order under Sec.107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to drop the proceeding unless the stage of Sec.119 of the Code reaches. The argument raises question of considerable importance. Sec.119 of the Code reads as follows: "If, on an inquiry under Sec.117, it is not proved that it is necessary for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour, as the case may be, that the person in respect of whom the inquiry is made, should execute a bond, the Magistrate shall make an entry on the record to that effect, and, if such person is in custody only for the purposes of the inquiry, shall release him, or, if such person is not in custody, shall discharge him." The words "in manner hereinafter provided" occurring in Sec.107 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure are significant words, and the manner provided is laid down in Sec.112 of the Code, when a Magistrate exercises his discretion and decides to require any person to show cause. The notice to show cause must be a notice which specifies the requirements of Sec.112 of the Code. In Sections 113 to 116 of the Code, the modes for securing attendance of the persons proceeded against are laid down. Sec.117 of the Code lays down the stage when the Magistrate shall proceed to inquire into the truth of the information upon which action has been taken, and take such further evidence as may appear necessary. The final stage of the inquiry is reached when the Magistrate under Sec.119 of the Code passes an order discharging the person proceeded against, when on inquiry it is not proved that it is necessary for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour, as the case may be. 4 A Magistrate under Sec.107 of the Code is not required to examine the person proceeded against until at a much later stage when he proceeds to act under Sec.117 of the Code. 4 A Magistrate under Sec.107 of the Code is not required to examine the person proceeded against until at a much later stage when he proceeds to act under Sec.117 of the Code. The proceeding before the Magistrate under Sec.107 becomes judicial only from the stage of inquiry under this section, but before this stage is reached and before any notice to show cause is issued under Sec.112 of the Code, a Magistrate has inherent power to reconsider the truth or falsehood of the information received by him. No hard and fast rule can be laid down about the quality and character of the information on which the Magistrate should or should not act. 5. In the present case, I have already stated that the Sub-divisional Magistrate on a perusal of the protest petition, filed on behalf of the opposite parties entertained doubt regarding the allegations contained in the report submitted by the Deo Police. In my view, he was perfectly justified in sending the Police report for verification by the Divisional Inspector of Police. From the report submitted by the Divisional Inspector of Police, it is clear that the persons named in the petition filed by the petitioner did not appear to be ring-leaders and it was not thought proper to round up the whole villagers. In view of the fact that a proceeding under Sec.107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was already going on against six members who were ringleaders, the Magistrate was perfectly justified in dropping the proceeding against the opposite parties. In this view of the matter, I do not find any illegality or want of Jurisdiction in the impugned order passed by the Magistrate dropping the proceeding. 6. I do not find any merit in this application which, is accordingly dismissed.