JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - This reference has been made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah on 28-4-1971 for quashing the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Bidhuna, dated 15.10.1970 in proceedings under S. 107 and 117 Cr. P. C. 2. In village Purwa Bhawani there are two warring communities, the Ahirs and the Chamars. They are said to be at daggers drawn with each other. Several incidents and reports have been lodged by both the communities. Ultimately, proceedings under Sections 107 and 117, Cr. P. C. were drawn up against both the parties. Cross-cases were started. The learned Magistrate summoned both the parties and after hearing their counsel he discharged the order under S. 112, Cr. P. C. against Amru and others, while notices in the cross-case against Gyani etc. were not withdrawn. Against this order dated 15.10.1970, Gyani filed a revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah, who has made a reference to this Court for quashing the impugned order of the Magistrate. 3. The main point stressed in this case is that after giving notice under S. 112, Cr. P. C., the learned Magistrate was bound to have followed the procedure laid down under S. 117, Cr.P.C., and without making an inquiry he had no jurisdiction to pass an order of discharge. Reliance has been placed for this sub mission on a decisions of the Lahore High Court in the case of Ujagar Singh v. Emperor, 30 Cr. LJ 839 where it was held as follows: "It is the duty of the Magistrate to proceed to enquire into the truth of the information on which he takes action, and it is only if upon such inquiry it is proved that it is necessary to take a bond from the person in respect of whom the enquiry has been made, that he can be ordered to execute a bond." 4. I am inclined to accept the reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah. In my view, the above quoted decision lays down the correct law. From a reading of the relevant sections of Chapter VIII it is clear that where a notice has been issued under section 117 Cr. I am inclined to accept the reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah. In my view, the above quoted decision lays down the correct law. From a reading of the relevant sections of Chapter VIII it is clear that where a notice has been issued under section 117 Cr. P. C. the Magistrate concerned is bound to make an inquiry under S. 117 Cr.P.C. Section 117 reads thus :- "When an order under S. 112 has been read or explained under S. 113 to a person present in Court, or when any person appears or is brought before a Magistrate in compliance with, or in execution of a summons or warrant, issued under S. 114, the Magistrate shall proceed to inquire into the truth of the information upon which action has been taken, and to take such further evidence as may appear necessary." 5. Sub-section (2) of S. 117 lays down that the procedure to be followed in the inquiry under S. 117 would be as nearly as may be practicable the same as prescribed for conducting trials and recording evidence in summons oases. It has been held in Ali Hussain and others v. Laxmi Narain Mahajan and others, AIR 1932 Alld. 188 as follows :- "When the duty of the Magistrate lies under section 244 Cr.P.C. to hear all evidence in support of the prosecution, the language of section 244 is compulsory if the Magistrate does not take the evidence of any of the witnesses named in the complaint and proceeds to write an order in the case the procedure adopted by him cannot be justified." 6. Section 244 Cr.P.C. relates to trial of summons oases. As mentioned above, Section 117 (2) lays down that the inquiry under that section shall be conducted as far as possible according to the procedure prescribed for summons cases. it is thus clear that in proceedings under section 117, the leerned Magistrate was bound to follow the procedure which is prescribed for recording evidence in summons cases. In the case before me this procedure has not been followed. it is thus clear that in proceedings under section 117, the leerned Magistrate was bound to follow the procedure which is prescribed for recording evidence in summons cases. In the case before me this procedure has not been followed. A reference may also be made here to section 119, Cr.P.C. which reads thus : "If, on an inquiry under section 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". 7. The aforesaid section further clarifies that the Magistrate is empowered to discharge an accused against whom proceedings have been initiated under section 107 and 117, only if on inquiry it is not proved that it is necessary to take steps against him for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour, as the case may be. It is only after the conclusion of the enquiry that the Magistrate has a jurisdiction to discharge the accused. 8. For the above reasons, I am of the opinion that this reference by the Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah is well founded. I hereby accept the same and quash the order by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bidhuna, dated 15.10.1970. The Magistrate concerned will now proceed with the case according to law, in the light of the observations spade by me above.