JUDGMENT H.N. Seth, J. - This is a reference by the Civil and Sessions Judge, Jaunpur, recommending that the order dated June 26, 1972, passed by the S. D. M. Jaunpur be set aside and the case be remanded to some other court for being decided in accordance with law. 2. Proceedings under section 147 Cr.P.C. were started on an application made by Sri Uma Shanker Misra who complained that Mahadeo and his friends had obstructed the way leading to a well from which the complainant and his family members used to draw water. By his order dated June 26, 1972, the Additional S. D. M. dropped the proceedings. He observed that there was no irrefutable evidence on the record to show that obstruction had been set up within three months of the date of the preliminary order made in this case and that he was also not satisfied that there was any apprehension of breach of peace. Against the order dropping the proceedings, Uma Shanker Misra and others went up in revision before the Civil and Sessions Judge, Jaunpur, who held that at an earlier stage also Mahadeo Misra and others had moved an application stating that there was no apprehension of breach of peace and that the proceedings be dropped. That application was rejected on the finding that there was material on the record to show that an apprehension of breach of peace existed. Once such a prayer had been refused, the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to drop the proceedings without any fur then material, on the basis of which he could come to a conclusion that the apprehension of breach of peace had disappeared, being brought on the record. According to him, the preliminary order passed by the Magistrate in this case was defective and no proceedings on its basis could be continued. He also observed that the finding recorded by the Magistrate that there was no irrefutable evidence on the record to show that the obstruction complained of was set up within three months of the date of preliminary order was perverse. Accordingly, lie made the present reference to this Court, recommending that the order of dropping proceeding be set aside and the Magistrate be directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law. 3. Accordingly, lie made the present reference to this Court, recommending that the order of dropping proceeding be set aside and the Magistrate be directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law. 3. Once it is found that the preliminary order passed in this case was defective, all the proceedings under section 147 following that order have to be quashed and dropped. In the circumstances, the order of the S.D.M. dropping the proceedings, though made on grounds, which, according to the Sessions Judge. are not tenable, cannot be interfered with. In this view of the matter it is not necessary for me to go into the question whether the finding recorded by the Magistrate that there was no apprehension of breach of peace or that there was no material on the record to support the allegation that obstruction complained of was set up within three months of the date of the preliminary order, is correct or not any case, as the preliminary order itself was defective, the case cannot be sent back to tic Magistrate for trial afresh. 4. However, the order, dropping these proceedings does not preclude Uma Shanker Misra from moving another application for taking fresh proceedings under section 147 Cr.P.C. and the Magistrate, if he feels satisfied that there is an apprehension of breach of peace, would be free to take action under that section after drawing up proper preliminary order in accordant, with law. 5. The reference made by the learned Civil and Sessions judge is accordingly rejected.