JUDGMENT : C.P. Sinha, J. 1. This revision is directed against the ORDER :dated 18.11.1970 in case No. 225 M of 1969 pending in the court of Mr. Z.H. Khan, Magistrate, First Class, Begusarai. This is a case under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) between the present petitioner as the first party and present opposite party ( nos. 1 to 6) as the second party. Under the impugned ORDER :the Magistrate has discharged opposite party nos. 1 to 4 from the proceeding and directed the continuance of the proceeding against the remaining two (opposite party nos. 5 and 6). The relevant facts are as follows. The sub-divisional Magistrate, Begusarai received a police report on 27.6.1969 recommending action under Section 107 of the Code against the aforesaid six members of the opposite party. Being satisfied on that report that there was an apprehension of breach of the peace at the hands of those persons, he drew the proceeding under Section 107 of the Code against them on that very day i.e., 27.6.1959 calling upon them to show cause why they should not each be made to execute bond of Rs. 1000/- with two sureties of the like amount, to keep peace for a period of one year. The proceeding, in due course, was served upon those persons and they filed their show cause on 10.10.1969 when the Sub-divisional Magistrate transferred the case to the file of the above Magistrate Mr. Z.H. Khan for disposal. In the meanwhile on 19.7.1969 the first party filed a petition before the Sub-divisional Magistrate for taking action under Section 117(3) of the Code against the members of the second party on the allegations made therein. The Sub-divisional Magistrate referred that petition to the local police for enquiry and report. After necessary enquiry the police submitted the report in which they recommended for action under Section 117(3) against those persons. The parties were duly heard by the Magistrate on that report on 16.12.1969 and he directed the second party members to execute ad-interim bonds of Rs. 1000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to keep peace till the substantive proceeding has been disposed of. While recording this ORDER :, the Magistrate postponed the hearing of the substantive proceeding to 29.12.1969. 2. 1000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to keep peace till the substantive proceeding has been disposed of. While recording this ORDER :, the Magistrate postponed the hearing of the substantive proceeding to 29.12.1969. 2. The second party challenged the above ORDER :of the Magistrate under Section 117(3) before the High Court in Criminal Revision no. 456 of 1970. That revision was allowed, on 16.4.1970, in favour of the present opposite party nos. 1 to 4 and dismissed in respect of the other two persons (opposite party nos. 5 and 6). The main reason which appears to have weighed with the learned Judge in allowing the revision in favour of those four persons was that they were railway employees at Lillooah in West Bengal and were likely to stay away from their village in connection with their employment and as such the ORDER :of the Magistrate against them was not proper. 3. On 23.7.1970 a petition was again filed by the first party for taking action under Section 117(3) of the Code against the opposite party. The Magistrate referred that petition to the local police for enquiry and report. In his report the Officer-in-charge recommended for taking ad-interim bonds from the opposite party. When this report was put up before the Magistrate on 18.9.1970, a prayer was made on behalf of the opposite party that the report made by the officer-in-charge should be verified by some higher police officer. Accordingly, the Magistrate referred the report to the Deputy Superintendent of Police for necessary verification. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, however, got the matter enquired into by his Inspector who sent his report dated 13.10.1970. In that report of the Police Inspector, which was duly endorsed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the recommendation was that the proceeding under Section 107/ 117(3) of the Code should be dropped against the four opposite party (present opposite party nos. 1 to 4) because they were in service at Lillooah where they stayed permanently and the proceeding under Section 107 was vexatious. When this report came before the Magistrate on 17.10.1970, a protest was made by the first party against it. 1 to 4) because they were in service at Lillooah where they stayed permanently and the proceeding under Section 107 was vexatious. When this report came before the Magistrate on 17.10.1970, a protest was made by the first party against it. Thereupon, the Magistrate referred the matter to the Deputy Superintendent of Police again directing him to make a personal enquiry at the spot and report if action under Section 117(3) against the opposite party was necessary particularly in view of the High Court's JUDGMENT : under which the Magistrate's previous ORDER :for taking such bonds had been quashed. While making this ORDER :on 17.10.1970, the Magistrate directed that in the mean time witness should be produced as ORDER :ed earlier and the case was adjourned to 2.11.1970. On this date (2.11.1970) first party filed hazari of two witnesses and two of the opposite party were present and the rest were represented. The report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police was later received in which he made recommendation against taking of ad interim bond under Section 117(3) from the four persons concerned (present opposite party nos. 1 to 4). As the trying Magistrate was out, the case was adjourned to 17.11.1970. On 11.11.1970 the first party protested to the correctness of the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police and wanted the Magistrate to have further enquiry done into that matter. He, however, rejected that prayer and directed him (first party) to produce witnesses so that the proceeding itself could be disposed of early. On 17.11.1970 hazari of two witnesses was filed for the first party. Two of the opposite party were present and the rest were represented. The Magistrate adjourned the case to 18.11.1970 for evidence and also for hearing regarding dropping of the proceeding against some of the opposite party. On this date (18.11.1970) again hazari of two witnesses of the first party was filed and out of the six opposite party only two were present. The Magistrate heard the parties on the issue of dropping the proceeding partially against four of the opposite party (present opposite party nos. 1 to 4) and in the impugned ORDER :he dropped the proceeding against them (opposite party nos. 1 to 4) holding that no reasonable apprehension existed from them. He further ORDER :ed that the proceeding would continue against the remaining two opposite party. 1 to 4) and in the impugned ORDER :he dropped the proceeding against them (opposite party nos. 1 to 4) holding that no reasonable apprehension existed from them. He further ORDER :ed that the proceeding would continue against the remaining two opposite party. As already observed,' it is this ORDER :of the Magistrate which is the subject of challenge in this revision. 4. Mr. Jugal Kishore Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, has assailed the validity of the impugned ORDER :on the ground that when the Magistrate had commenced the proceeding against the opposite party and the proceeding was served on them and they filed their show cause in pursuance to the notice issued to them in that regard, the only course left to the Magistrate is to hold the enquiry as prescribed under Section 117(1) of the Cede to find out the truth or otherwise of the information upon which he had taken action, and if on that enquiry the Magistrate finds that they should be bound down then he should take security under Section 118 and if he holds otherwise then he should discharge them under Section 119. Instead of following this prescribed procedure, the learned Magistrate has, however, recorded an ORDER :of discharge of four of the opposite party in an arbitrary and capricious manner. 5. From the facts stated above it is clear that after service of the proceeding on the opposite party they filed their show cause on 10.10.1969, where after the Sub-divisional Magistrate transferred the case to the Magistrate concerned Mr. Z.H. Khan for disposal. On 24.11.1969, the Magistrate adjourned the case to 16.12.1969 for hearing on the show cause. On 15.7.1970, after receiving back the record of the case from the High Court where it had been called for in connection with the disposal of the aforesaid criminal revision the learned Magistrate adjourned the case to 3.8.1970 for evidence. Again on 17.10.1970, he adjourned it to 2.11.1970 directing the parties to produce their witnesses. On 2.11.1970, the Magistrate directed the first party to produce his witnesses so that he could dispose of the proceeding itself early. On 17.11.1970, which was the next date fixed for hearing of the case, two witnesses of the first party were present. They were, however, not examined and the case was adjourned to 18.11.1970 for evidence. 6. On 2.11.1970, the Magistrate directed the first party to produce his witnesses so that he could dispose of the proceeding itself early. On 17.11.1970, which was the next date fixed for hearing of the case, two witnesses of the first party were present. They were, however, not examined and the case was adjourned to 18.11.1970 for evidence. 6. It will appear from the above that aforesaid adjournments in the case were clearly for the purpose of holding enquiry under Section 117(1) of the Code. The enquiry must comprise all the persons proceeded against and not only a few of them. It is after completing the enquiry that he can take security from all or any of them. It is then not quite understandable as to how the Magistrate, on 17.11.1970, adjourned the case to 18.11.1970 for taking evidence but in the same breath said, also for hearing regarding dropping of proceeding against some of the opposite party. The implication of the first part of this ORDER :was that he would have the evidence in respect of all the opposite party whereas the second part meant that he would hear the matter in respect of only some of them. 7. On 18.11.1970, two witnesses were present on behalf of the first party. Among the six second party, two were present. But instead of examining the witnesses so present he chose to hear the parties on the question of dropping proceeding against four of the opposite party, viz. present opposite party nos. 1 to 4, and discharged them relying upon the police reports which were contradictory and the High Court ORDER :in the aforesaid criminal revision. In my opinion, the Magistrate was in error in discharging these persons on those materials which were not fully relevant on the question which he was then considering. 8. That ORDER :of the High Court quashed the Magistrate's ORDER :in respect of the opposite party nos. 1 to 4 and maintained it against the other two regarding execution of ad-interim bonds under Section 117(3). In that revision the propriety of the 107 proceeding against the opposite party was not in question. Similarly, the police reports also related to the specific question of taking of interim bonds from the opposite party. The police was then not required to report on the question of the continuance of the 107 proceeding. 9. In that revision the propriety of the 107 proceeding against the opposite party was not in question. Similarly, the police reports also related to the specific question of taking of interim bonds from the opposite party. The police was then not required to report on the question of the continuance of the 107 proceeding. 9. The submission of the opposite party that consequent upon the aforesaid High Court's ORDER :dated 16.4.1970 in the criminal revision the substantive proceeding concerned must be deemed to have come to a close so that the subsequent report of the Officer-in-charge dated 22.7.1970 (Annexure 6) recommending action under Section 107/ 117(3) against the opposite party must be treated as a fresh report for new proceeding under Section 107 against them, and when that recommendation of the Officer-in-charge was not accepted by higher police officer like Inspector and Deputy Superintendent of Police the Magistrate was perfectly justified in not initiating any action against these four persons and dropping the previous proceeding against them, appears to be wholly without any substance. As already pointed out, all these documents were on specific point whether they deserved to be bound down under Section 117(3). In such circumstances, it would be quite wrong to say that after that decision of the High Court the substantive proceeding terminated in favour of these opposite party. 10. On the facts of the instant case the authorities in (1) Ishwar Prasad V. Sagarmal Kejriwal and others (1965 Cr.L.J. 840) and (2) Asghar Khan V. State and others (A.I.R. 1964 All 391) cited by the opposite party do not appear to help them. Under these decisions a Magistrate is held entitled to drop a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code before making an enquiry under Section 117 even though he had passed an ORDER :under Section 112 if he comes to the conclusion that on the materials placed before him there is no longer any apprehension of the breach of the peace. The learned counsel for the petitioner has no dispute with these rulings. His contention is that they are not applicable to the present case because there was no fresh material before the Magistrate on which he could conclude that there was no longer any apprehension of breach of peace at the hands of four opposite party concerned. The learned counsel for the petitioner has no dispute with these rulings. His contention is that they are not applicable to the present case because there was no fresh material before the Magistrate on which he could conclude that there was no longer any apprehension of breach of peace at the hands of four opposite party concerned. According to him, merely, because some police officers had expressed themselves against taking of ad-interim bonds from them on which point alone the matter had been referred to them for enquiry and report, the Magistrate could not justifiably presume that there was no reasonable apprehension of breach of peace from them and if he did so, it was his arbitrary action which should not be sustained in law. There seems substance in these submissions. 11. As observed above, the Magistrate had been postponing the case from time to time for taking evidence in the enquiry to be held under Section 17(1). Even on the last day i.e., 17.11.1970 he adjourned the case to 18.11.1970 for such evidence. On that day (17.11.1970) for the first time he liked that adjournment with also hearing the parties regarding dropping of the proceeding against some of the opposite party. In the above Patna decision (1965 Cr.L.J. 840) the learned Judge quashed the ORDER :of the Magistrate dropping the proceeding under Section 107 as arbitrary holding that he had done so on the old materials which were before him when he had made ORDER :under Section 112 and on some assumptions which appeared to be unjustified. In the instant case the impugned ORDER :appear to be suffering from such infirmities and cannot, therefore, be maintained. 12. In the unreported case of (3) Bishun Tewari V. Choa Lal Sah and 27 others decided on 28th July, 1970 in criminal revision no. 2358 of 1968 by this Court the Magistrate had drawn a proceeding under Section 107 against the opposite party on 27.4.1968 which was on the basis of a petition filed by the first party; the opposite party filed show cause. On 29.6.1968, after perusal of that petition, the show cause and the case record, the learned Magistrate discharged the opposite party under Section 119 of the Code and, accordingly, dropped the proceeding. On 29.6.1968, after perusal of that petition, the show cause and the case record, the learned Magistrate discharged the opposite party under Section 119 of the Code and, accordingly, dropped the proceeding. The learned Judge in the revision quashed that ORDER :of the Magistrate and directed him to dispose of the case in accordance with law, holding that when the opposite party had appeared before him in the case in compliance with the summons issued under Section 114, Criminal Procedure Code, it was incumbent upon him to proceed to enquire into the truth of the information upon which action had been taken and, if necessary, to take such further evidence under Section 117(1). It was also held that without holding an enquiry in the manner so prescribed it was not open to the Magistrate to drop the proceeding merely on perusal of the police report, show cause and case records. 13. In view of the above discussions, the impugned ORDER :dated 18.11.1970 so far as it relates to the dropping of the proceeding in respect of present opposite party nos. 1 to 4 and their consequent discharge, appears to be improper and against law and must be quashed. In the result, the revision is allowed and the Magistrate's ORDER :discharging these opposite party nos. 1 to 4 from the proceeding after dropping it is set aside. The Magistrate is directed to continue the proceeding against these four persons also along with the other two and dispose it of in accordance with law in the light of the above observations. It is hoped both sides will cooperate with the learned Magistrate to have the proceeding concluded as early as possible.