JUDGMENT : S. Acharya, J. - This is a revision against the order of the Magistrate First Class, Sundargarh dropping a proceeding u/s 107, Code of Criminal Procedure initiated against the second party. 2. On a perusal of the impugned Order 1 find that the Magistrate, while dropping the said proceeding, has not given any finding that at the time the paid proceeding was dropped there was no apprehension of breach of the peace due to any act or conduct of any of the members of the 2nd Party. The Magistrate started the proceeding u/s 107, Code of Criminal Procedure on being satisfied that the member of the 2nd party were likely to commit breach of the peace and accordingly called upon them to show cause as to why they should not be ordered to Execute bonds for maintaining the peace. Having Acted so on the reports and information?s before him to the above effect, the Magistrate should no have suddenly dropped that proceeding without a categorical finding the effect that here was no further apprehension of breach of the peace on their account Prevention of breach of peace and/or of commission of offence being the sole purpose for taking Action u/s 107, Code of Criminal Procedure the Magistrate should act with caution and watchful care both while taking Action under this section and while dropping such a proceeding, or else the liberty of the citizens and/or the security of the society may be in jeopardy. Moreover, the Magistrate, as I find, is very much influenced by and obsessed with the ex parte nature of the civil Court decree in favor of the first party, the Execution of which was the cause for the breach of the peace for which the proceeding had to be drawn up. The Court below, instead of whittling down the civil Court decree only because it was an ex parte one, should have attached proper importance to it. It is well settled that criminal Courts should protect the rights awarded by the civil Courts if actually the rights obtained by the decree holder are invaded. I also find that the evidence on record has not been properly, considered, and/or assessed in the manner it should have been. 3. I accordingly set aside the impugned order. It is well settled that criminal Courts should protect the rights awarded by the civil Courts if actually the rights obtained by the decree holder are invaded. I also find that the evidence on record has not been properly, considered, and/or assessed in the manner it should have been. 3. I accordingly set aside the impugned order. The case is sent back to the Court below, who on giving a fresh hearing to both the parties and, if considered necessary, an opportunity to both the parties to adduce fresh evidence should disposed of the matter in accordance with Jaw. It is needless to mention that no action need be taken in the matter if condition necessary for the continuance of the proceeding are not in existence at present. 4. The revision accordingly is allowed. The learned Magistrate should dispose of this matter in accordance with the directions and observations made above within as short a time as possible, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of the lower Court records. Final Result : Allowed