JUDGMENT 1. - Purporting to act on an information received by him under section 107 Cr. PC from the police, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order, dated August 31, 1981, requiring one of the rival parties to the said proceedings to appear in his court on September 21, 1981. Earlier, on April 13, 1981, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate had passed an order against the other party midis Section 111 Cr. PC requiring the members of that party show cause why they should not be required to execute a bond in the amount of Rs. 1000/- with one surety in the same amount for keeping the peace for a period of six months. 2. Ghisilal who was directed to appear in the court on September, 21, 1981, vide impugned order, dated, August 31, 1981, has challenged that order by way of the present petition under section 482 Cr. PC. 3. Notice of this application was given to the Public Prosecutor, who was present in the court and who accepted it. 4. It will be seen from the impugned order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate on August 31, 1981 that all that he has done is to direct the present petitioner to appear in his court on September 21, 1981. The petitioner has placed on record a number of other documents which will show that the party opposed to the present petitioner was similarly required to enter appearance in the court from time to time and was required to execute recognizance and surety bonds purpose. It is obvious that the learned Magistrate has been dealing with this matter under section 107 Cr. PC in a manner not warranted by law. He has no jurisdiction under law to require the party to enter appearance in his court and furnish bonds for the purpose. As already indicated the only jurisdiction vested in the Magistrate is to pass an order according to law under section 111 Cr. PC and simultaneously, if necessary, to pass another order under section 116 Cr. PC. The learned Magistrate has not passed any order in respect of the petitioner Ghisilal either under section 111 or under section 116 Cr.P.C. The order passed directing the petitioner to appear in his court is obviously bad, being without jurisdiction. Even otherwise, these proceedings under section 107 Cr. PC seem to be pending in his court fore more than 7 months. Even otherwise, these proceedings under section 107 Cr. PC seem to be pending in his court fore more than 7 months. Such proceedings stand terminated on the expiry of the period of 6 months from the date of commencement of enquiry. This means that the proceedings under section 107 Cr. PC stood terminated immediately on the expiry of period of 6 months from the date of commencement of the enquiry. 5. In conclusion, this application under section 482 Cr. PC is allowed. The impugned order, dated, August 31, 1981 is set aside.Application allowed. *******