JUDGMENT 1. - This application under section 482 is directed against the order of the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Barmer, dated 15-1-75. I heard arguments and perused the record. 2. The S.H.O. Barmer filed on 8-1-75 a complaint under section 107 in the court of the said Sub-divisional Magistrate against 9 persons that Shanker Lal Oswal had purchased a plot of land in the year 1971 from one Bhoppa Meghwal. He was permitted by the Municipal Board, Barmer. to raise construction thereupon. He began his. constructions on 3-1-75 but the aforesaid persons Bhoor Singh and Others claimed that the plot belongs to them and say that they will not permit any construction. Both the parties are determined to forcibly occupy the plot and their determination shows that there was likelihood of a breach of the peace. Bhoor Singh and Others should, therefore, be bound down to maintain peace. 3. On 8-1-75 the learned magistrate directed that notices be given to only four persons, namely, Bhakar Singh, Padam Singh, Girdhar Singh and Bhoor Singh to show cause why they should not be bound down to keep peace for one year in the amount of Rs. 50,000/- each with such five sureties of Rs. 10.000/- each as could exercise control over the petitioners and were ready to hypothecate their properties. 4. The learned Sub-divisional Magistrate further noted that peace cannot be preserved without immediate arrest of the aforesaid persons and therefore, he directed that they be arrested forthwith. 5. In respect of the remaining four persons, the learned magistrate was not satisfied with the report of the S.H.O. and he directed him to make further inquiries and report in respect of them. 6. It is against this order that the powers of this court under section 482 Cr. P.C. are being invoked. 7. The learned counsel for t he petitioners submits that the order of the magistrate is illegal because he acted upon a very vague information furnished by the police. The learned magistrate did not care to see whether the petitioners were indulging to any unlawful act. The complaint was lodged in respect of 9 persons but he issued notices and warrants only against four persons in a very arbitrary manner. The learned magistrate did not care to see whether the petitioners were indulging to any unlawful act. The complaint was lodged in respect of 9 persons but he issued notices and warrants only against four persons in a very arbitrary manner. It was then contended that the amount of the bonds was so excessive that it almost amounted that the learned magistrate was not asking them to furnish bonds rather his aim was to detain them as they were most likely to fail to furnish such bonds. 8. According to section 113, immediate arrest can be directed by the magistrate of the petitioner only if it appears to him that there is reason to fear the commission of breach of the peace and that such breach cannot be prevented otherwise than by the immediate arrest of such persons. The impugned order is said to have been passed upon the report of the S.H.O. that all the four non-petitioners, namely, Bhoor Singh, Bhanwar Singh, Padam Singh and Girdhar Singh were roaming with lathis and are ready to commit immediate breach of peace which cannot be prevented in any wise other than by their immediate arrest. 9. The record of the case further shows that until 3-2-75, the warrants were not executed. A P.P. submitted to the Sub-divisional Magistrate that immediate fear still prevailed and breach of the peace cannot be prevented without the arrest of the petitioners. The learned Magistrate directed that warrants be issued again. On 10 2-75 again an order for re-issue of warrant was made. It appears further that until 18-2-75 the warrants could not be executed when the file was directed to be submitted to this court. 10. I have considered over this matter and it at once appears that when the learned magistrate acted under the proviso to section 113 for immediate arrest of the petitioners, he relied on the report of the S.H.O., which I have quoted above but which does not appear in the complaint of the S.H.O. The order of the learned magistrate does not show that the aforesaid statement was made by the S.H O. orally to him. I am therefore, inclined to think that the learned magistrate was acting without any information in this respect. 11. As regards the other contentions the Sub-divisional Magistrate has only issued a notice to the petitioners. I am therefore, inclined to think that the learned magistrate was acting without any information in this respect. 11. As regards the other contentions the Sub-divisional Magistrate has only issued a notice to the petitioners. They would have sufficient opportunity and time to show to him that the bond amount and the conditions thereof were excessive or further still that they can not be asked to furnish any surety under section 107 Cr. P.C. It will not be proper for to discuss all these matters which could properly be agitated in the court below in the first instance. But the order of immediate arrest deserves to be set aside in order to prevent abuse of the process of court for the afore-mentioned reason that the S.H.O. had not said in his report that there was reason to fear the commission of breach of the peace by the petitioners. 12. I therefore, partly accept this application and direct that the direction of the learned magistrate for immediate arrest of the petitioners shall be and is hereby quashed. The learned magistrate shall however proceed further in accordance with law in the remaining matter. *******