Anwar Ahmad, J. This application is directed against an order of the learned Magistrate dropping the proceeding under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (herein-after referred to as 'the Code') against the opposite party. 2. It appears that a proceeding under section 107 of the Code having been started, notice under section 112 of the Code was issued to the opposite party; who appeared in court and filed his show cause. The learned Magistrate considered his show cause and without coming to a clear finding that there was no apprehension of a breach of the peace, by the impugned order, he dropped the proceeding on the ground that the opposite party would sustain great difficulty in his studies, if he was to indulge in the instant proceedings. He disbelieved the fact that the opposite party alone would do such things with a University teacher and Hostel Superintendent which might result in breach of the peace. 3. It has to be stated that once a proceeding under section 107 of the Code is started, only two courses are open to the Magistrate: (1) he has to follow the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Code and conclude the proceedings or (2) the court can avoid this inquiry if it comes to a clear finding earlier that there is no more apprehension of a breach of the peace. There are a number of decisions on this point. I may, however, refer to a decision of this Court dated the 24th August 1964 in the case Mokhtar Ahmad Khan V. Mohammad Amir Khan and others CR. Ref No. 115 of 1963 D. 24.8.1964 where S.N.P. Singh, J. held as follows : "On the face of it, the order of the Magistrate is bad in law in as much as he was not competent to discharge the opposite party under section 119 of the Code before the conclusion of the inquiry. Once a proceeding under section 107 is drawn up, the Magistrate can drop that proceeding only when he is satisfied that there is no longer any apprehension of breach of peace at the hands of a party or parties proceeded against." To the similar effect there is another decision of this Court dated the 17th September 1964, in the case Ishwar Prasad alias Ram Niwas V. Sagarmal Kejriwal and others Cr. Rev. Rev. 764 of 1964 D. 17.9.64 where Sahai, J. observed that as the Magistrate drew up an order under section 112 of the Code, he was bound to proceed to enquire into the truth of the information. He is empowered to drop the proceeding provided he comes to the conclusion that there is no more apprehension of a breach of the peace. These two cases are followed by me while deciding the case of Santa Debi V. Lakhan Lal Singh and others A.I.R. 1968 Patna 326. The matter now stands settled by an observation of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Madhu Limaye v. Sub-divisional Magistrate, Monghyr, and others A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 2486. It will be better to quote in the words of their Lordships some portions of paragraphs 48 and 53 : "48.....Apart from the fact (which we have sufficiently emphasised above) that S.55 deals with special cases of arrest and cannot be made applicable. S.107 itself speaks that the procedure of Chapter VIII should be followed where Ss. 112, 113 and 114 of the Code prescribe their own procedures. Similarly, S. 91 may be available till the order under S.112 is' drawn up. After it is drawn up the 'Magistrate has to act under ss. "113 and 117 (1). Then there is no room for S. 91………” "53. After the order under Section 112 has been issued, the procedure to be adopted is that contained in Sections 113 and 114. If such person is present in Court, the order under section 112 has to be read over to him and, if he so desires, the substance thereof has to be explained to him. If he is not present in court, the Magistrate has to issue a summons requiring him to appear, or, when such person is in custody, a warrant directing the officer in whose custody he is to bring him before the Court. Another alternative procedure is laid down for cases where it appears to the Magistrate that there is reason to fear the commission of a breach of the peace and that such breach of the peace cannot be prevented otherwise than by the immediate arrest of such person, in such cases, the Magistrate can issue a warrant for the arrest of that person. It is under this procedure that the person appears or is brought before the Court; The proceeding to be taken thereafter are laid down in section 117 (1) which requires that, as soon as the order under S.112 has been read or explained to the person present in Court under S.113 or to the person who appears or is brought before a Magistrate under S. 114, the Magistrate has to proceed to enquire into the truth of the information upon which action has been taken and to take such further evidence as may appear necessary. This inquiry under sub-Sec. (2) of S.117 has to be held in the manner prescribed for conducting trials and recording evidence in summons cases. Sub-Sec. (1) of Section 117, thus, contains in Mandatory direction on the Magistrate to start proceedings of inquiry as soon as the person, in respect of whom the order under S. 112 has been made, appears before the Magistrate. Section 117 (1) makes it clear that the Magistrate must institute the inquiry without any unnecessary delay.....” 4. As already stated, there is no clear finding in the impugned order to the effect that there is no more apprehension of a breach of the peace, and in the absence of such a finding, the order by which the proceeding has been dropped cannot be allowed to stand. It is, accordingly, set aside. The case is sent back to the learned Magistrate who will proceed in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above. 5. With the above observations, the application is allowed. Application allowed.