JUDGMENT C.D. Parekh, J. - This revision arises out of the order dated January 1, 1970 passed by the Addl. City Magistrate, 1st Class Kanpur, against the applicants under the provisions of Section 107/117 Cr.P.C. From the impugned order it appears that the magistrate was satisfied from the police report that the relations between the applicant and others on the one hand and Gobardhan and others on the other were strained because of a dispute regarding the house and a marpit had also taken place on January 1, 1970. The applicant feeling aggrieved by the order of the magistrate preferred revision be- fore the A D.M. (J) Kanpur and stressed that when the proceedings related to an immovable property it was desirable for the magistrate to have taken proceedings under section 145 Cr.P.C and resort should not have been taken under section 107/117 Cr.P.C. The learned ADM (J) after hearing the parties has held that in the circumstances of each case the magistrate is to determine whether he would proceed under section 107/117 C,PC or under section 145 Cr.P.C and dismissed the revision. The applicant has now preferred the revision before this Court. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant again reiterated the point raised before the ADM (J), Kanpur. In my opinion the magistrate has the option in the circumstances of each case to proceed either under section 107/117 Cr.P.C or under section 145 Cr.P.C. It is not obligatory on the magistrate when dispute related to an immovable property that he should proceed invariably under section 145 Cr.P.C. It was next urged before me that the order passed under section 112 Cr.P.C lacks the substance of the information received by the magistrate and there- fore it vitiates the entire proceedings. I have myself gone through the order passed by the magistrate and in my view the magistrate has given the substance of the information received by him. He was satisfied from the police report dated January 1, 1970 that relations between Satya Prakash and others on the one hand and Gobardhan and others on the other were strained because of the dispute regarding some house property which resulted in a marpit on the same date. That was sufficient compliance, in my opinion, of the provisions of See. 112 Cr.P.C This point has also no force in view of the facts as stated above. 3. That was sufficient compliance, in my opinion, of the provisions of See. 112 Cr.P.C This point has also no force in view of the facts as stated above. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant also pressed that the period of notice has already expired and, therefore, the notice should be quashed. It is not for me to quash the notice. Et is for the magistrate to see whether there is any apprehension of breach of peace or not and if the magistrate feels satisfied he may still take proceedings. 4. No other point has been pressed before me. The revision application is dismissed. Stay order dated March 27, 1970 is vacated.