Order These three criminal revisions arise out of the proceedings taken against the petitioners under section 107, Code of Criminal Procedure. Since these three revision petitions arise out of the same proceedings, they are dealt with and disposed of by one common order. Proceedings were taken against the petitioners, who were respondents in the lower Court, under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for keeping peace. The petitioner in C.R.P. No. 139 of 1970 is the 2nd respondent in the trial Court. Respondent 3 in the said proceedings is one Pakru Gowda, who claims to be the tenant of the disputed land. It may be mentioned that, first proceedings were taken against respondent 3 under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Court passed a preliminary order under the said section on 15th February, 1969. The said proceedings are still pending and they have not been disposed of. On 13th May, 1969, proceedings under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated against the 15 respondents. While those proceedings were pending, again on 6th January, 1970, proceedings were initiated under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the same petitioners on the ground that they forcibly claimed the land comprised in 2 Survey numbers and were attempting to take possession of the same from Dr. Shambu Sharma, the landlord of the land. After passing the 2nd order under section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the respondents, the learned Magistrate seems to have called for further report from the police. On 27th January, 1970, the police filed a further report. Thereafter, the Magistrate was not satisfied and called for another report. The police filed a 2nd report on 18th February, 1970. Then, on 21st February, 1970, the learned Magistrate seems to have passed an interim order under section 117 (3) directing the petitioners herein to furnish security and execute bonds for keeping the peace pending disposal of the main petition. Criminal Revision Petition 88 and Criminal Revision Petition 140 of 1970 have been filed by all the 14 respondents challenging the said order passed by the learned Magistrate under section 117 (3). Sri A. G. Holla, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that the various proceedings taken against the petitioners are totally unwarranted and is an abuse of the process of the Court. Sri A. G. Holla, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that the various proceedings taken against the petitioners are totally unwarranted and is an abuse of the process of the Court. Respondent Pakru Gowda is the tenant cultivating the disputed land in question. Dr. Sharma is his landlord. The landlord filed a suit, O.S. No. 344 of 1968 against the tenant and prayed for an order of temporary injunction to restrain respondent 3 from interfering with the possession of the disputed land. The learned Munsiff, though he passed the interim order after Respondent-3 entered appearance and contested the matter, vacated the said order and held on the material before him that Respondent-3 was the tenant actually cultivating the land and in possession of the disputed land. Dr. Sharma thereafter went in appeal against the said order and the learned Civil Judge dismissed the appeal filed by him and confirmed the order of the learned Munsiff holding that Respondent 3 was the tenant actually cultivating the disputed land. Having failed in getting an order of temporary injunction, Dr. Sharma has initiated various proceedings against the respondents. It is argued that the various provisions of the Code have been misused and what is only a dispute between the landlord and the tenant has been converted into proceedings under sections 145 and 107, Criminal Procedure Code. The main purpose of section 107 proceedings is the preservation of peace and not to interfere with any dispute with regard to the possession of land between the landlord and the tenant. It is therefore urged that the endeavour of the landlord is only to recover possession of the land forcibly from the tenant and it is incorrect and improper to invoke the provisions of section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in cases of this nature. Shri Holla strongly relied on the decision of this Court, in State of Mysore v. Kenchegowda1 in support of the said contentions. It is contended in Cr.R.P. No. 139 of 1970 that the order dated 6th January, 1970 passed under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned Magistrate is legally defective. The substance of the information has not been set-forth in the said order to justify the passing of preliminary order under section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The substance of the information has not been set-forth in the said order to justify the passing of preliminary order under section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sri Holla has relied on two decisions of this Court Dodde Gowda v. State of Mysore2 and Chinnayya Chettiar v. State of Mysore3 in support of his contentions. It is also urged that the learned Magistrate has relied on totally irrelevant grounds when passing the said order. He has relied on circumstances mentioned in the earlier order dated 13th May, 1969 which are totally irrelevant for the purpose of this case. Reliance is placed on State of Maharashtra B.K. Takkamore4 wherein their Lordships stated that it is well established that when a Court of facts acts on material partly relevant and partly irrelevant, it is impossible to say to what extent the mind’ of the Court was affected by the irrelevant material used by it in arriving at its finding. Such a finding is vitiated because of the use of inadmissible material and thereby an issue of law arises. It is further contended that under the scope of the Code, the Magistrate has no power to call for further reports from the Police and the order of the learned Magistrate calling for 2 further reports from the police are totally illegal. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Chinnayya Chettiar's case3, in support oft he said contentions. There is considerable force in the contention of Sri Holla that the preliminary order passed under section 112 on 6th January, 1970 by the learned Magistrate is legally defective. The learned Magistrate in the said order passed by him has not complied with the requirement of section 112, Code of Criminal Procedure. He has not set forth the substance of the information received by him which justified his taking action. He has not given the particulars or various instances which necessitated the passing of the order in question. In Dodde Gowda v. State of Mysore1 this Court has laid down that ‘the mere fact that there are two parties not favourably disposed to each other and the fact that they have filed cases and counter cases is no ground for action being taken under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In Dodde Gowda v. State of Mysore1 this Court has laid down that ‘the mere fact that there are two parties not favourably disposed to each other and the fact that they have filed cases and counter cases is no ground for action being taken under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Information of the kind mentioned in section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, must be of a clear and definite kind, directly affecting the person againstwhom the process is issued and it should give definite facts and details so that it may afford sufficient notice to the person to meet those charges. The order which does not comply with these requirements has been held to be defective by this Court. The same view has been re-affirmed in another decision of this Court in Chinnayya Chettiar v. State of Mysore2. In the said decision it has been laid down that in the absence of any material on the face of the preliminary order to show that the Magistrate had been satisfied that there was likelihood of the breach of the peace being caused by the parson proceeded against, the preliminary order cannot be sustained. Apart from this, as has been pointed out by Sri Holla the learned Magistrate seems to have also relied on totally irrelevant material before passing an order under section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has relied on the circumstances mentioned in the earlier order under section 112 passed on 13th May, 1969. As Sri Holla has pointed out that after taking proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the 3rd respondent, the Court passed an order putting the disputed properties in possession of the receiver. As the receiver continued to be in possession of the disputed land, the circumstances mentioned in the earlier order of likelihood of the breach of peace could have no relevance in passing the present order. I am therefore clearly of the opinion that the impugned order dated 6th January, 1970 passed by the learned Magistrate is legally defective and has to be set aside. There is also considerable force in the contention of Sri Holla that the proceedings taken against the petitioner under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are misconceived. I am therefore clearly of the opinion that the impugned order dated 6th January, 1970 passed by the learned Magistrate is legally defective and has to be set aside. There is also considerable force in the contention of Sri Holla that the proceedings taken against the petitioner under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are misconceived. If there was any dispute between the landlord and the tenant and if there was any apprehension of breach of peace, proceedings could be instituted against the parties under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the instant case, the said proceedings have been initiated and they are pending. When proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is pending, there is no need to initiate repeated proceedings under section 107. In addition to this the learned Magistrate seems to have, thereafter called for two further reports from the police which he has no jurisdiction to do. Finally on 21st February, 1970, the learned Magistrate has passed an order under section 117 (3) directing the petitioners to furnish bonds pending decision of the case. I am of opinion that the observation made by this Court in State of Mysore v. Kenchegowda3 apply with full force to the instant case. In the said decision His Lordship has observed as follows: “…………….In my opinion since the main purpose of the provision of Chapter VIII of the Criminal Procedure Code , is the preservation of public peace and tranquility and the prevention of wrongful acts that might disturb such peace and tranquillity, the employment of their machinery to cripple the resisting power of some one who is opposing the endeavour of another to recover immoveable property would be a clear misuse of the Criminal Procedure Code.” In the said case His Lordship held that it was both incorrect and improper to invoke the provisions of section 107 , Code of Criminal Procedure, by trying to employ the machinery of Criminal Procedure Code, to cripple the resisting power of one who is opposing the endeavour of another to recover the property. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State has not attempted to support the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State has not attempted to support the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate. Since, the main order passed in the case cannot be supported and has to be quashed, the other incidental order passed therein, by the learned Magistrate under section 117 (3), Criminal Procedure Code, also fails. The said order, dated 21st February, 1970, is also defective as the learned Magistrate has not given a finding that immediate measures are necessary for the prevention of breach of peace nor has he recorded his reasons which justify the passing of the said order, I therefore, quash the said order, dated 21st February, 1970 passed by the learned Magistrate. In the result, for reasons mentioned above, I allow these three Revision Petitions and quash the impugned orders, dated 6th January, 1970 and 21st February, 1970, passed by the learned Magistrate. S.V.S. ----- Revision petitions allowed.