JUDGMENT 1. - Heard Mr. S.K. Keshote, learned counsel for the petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. Ajai Purohit, Public Prosecutor, for the State. This is an application under the section 482, Cr. PC for quashing the orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, and the Assistant Collector and Executive Magistrate No. 3, Jaipur City dated February 3, 1979 and November 7, 1978, respectively in a proceeding under section 107, Cr. PC initiated against the petitioner on the report of the incharge, Police Station, Gandhinagar, Jaipur. 2. The short facts giving rise to this application are narrated as follows : On August 22, 1978, the Executive Magistrate No. 3, Jaipur City, received a complaint under section 107, Cr. PC from the in charge, Police Station, Gandhinagar, that the petitioners were likely to commit breach of the peace by ousting Radha Raman Bhargava and his family from his house No. S.B. 56 situated in Bapunagar. It was alleged in the complaint that petitioner No. 1 Kishori Raman Bhargava had been transferred from Jodhpur to Jaipur in the year 1977. After his transfer, he and his family began to live in some portion of the same house with the permission of his father Radha Raman Bhargava. Petitioner No. 1. however, started harassing his father, mother, brothers and sisters on petty pretexts such as removal of electricity and telephone connections and stone slabs. Radha Raman Bhargava asked petitioner No. 1 not to harass him and his family but the former became enraged and on August, 15, 1978, beat his sister Aruna and his mother. Since then the petitioners are bent upon dispossessing Rudha Raman and his family by force. The petitioners even did not allow the members of Radha Raman's family to take out their clothes from the small room, i.e. `Kothari'. Upon receipt of this complaint from the police the Executive Magistrate was of opinion that there was sufficient ground for proceedings. He, therefore, required the petitioners to show cause why they should not he ordered to executive bonds for keeping the peace for six months. The Police also moved the Executive Magistrate for directing the petitioners to execute bonds with sureties for keeping the peace until the conclusion of the inquiry. The Executive Magistrate accepted the prayer of the police and passed an order under section 116(3), Cr. The Police also moved the Executive Magistrate for directing the petitioners to execute bonds with sureties for keeping the peace until the conclusion of the inquiry. The Executive Magistrate accepted the prayer of the police and passed an order under section 116(3), Cr. P.C. also directing the petitioners to execute bonds with sureties for keeping the peace until the conclusion or the inquiry. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Executive Magistrate, the petitioners filed a revision petition in the court of the Sessions Judge, Jaipur city. The revision petition was, however, heard by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, who, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, set aside the order of the Executive Magistrate directing the petitioners to furnish sureties under section 116 (3), Cr. P.C. It appears that by sheer mistake he committed to state in his order that the order of the Magistrate directing the petitioners to execute personal bonds also under sub-section (3) of section 116, Cr. P.C. is set aside. The Additional Sessions Judge while setting aside the order of the Executive Magistrate under Sub-section (3) of section 116, Cr. P.C. did not consider it proper to set aside the order of the Executive Magistrate regarding initiation of proceedings under section 107, Cr. C.P. against the petitioner. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, the petitioners filed a revision petition in the High Court, but the revision petition was dismissed summarily on the ground that no further application by the same party can be entertained by the High Court if an application in revision has been made by that party to the Sessions Judge. The petitioners, therefore, have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court by way of this application under section 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing the proceedings initiated against them by the Executive Magistrate under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code. 5. Mr. S K. Keshota, learned counsel for the petitioners, vehemently contended before me that from the activities of the petitioners as mentioned in the complaint, upon which the Executive Magistrate has acted, it cannot be legitimately inferred that the petitioners are bent upon committing any breach of the peace. It was further argued by him that the petitioners are closely related to Radha Raman and his family because petitioner No. 1 is his son and petitioners Nos. It was further argued by him that the petitioners are closely related to Radha Raman and his family because petitioner No. 1 is his son and petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are wife, son and daughter of the petitioner No. 1 respectively, and, that even if there is soms dispute relating to the house, it is purely of a civil nature not causing any reasonable apprehension of breach of the peace or disturbance of public tranquillity. The Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, urged that the petitioners are bent upon ousting Radha Raman and his family from their possession of the house and the petitioner No. 1 even did not hesitate in beating his own sister and the mother for carry out his evil design. It was further argued by the Public Prosecutor that the activities of the petitioners mentioned in the police complaint, on the basis of which the Ejective Magistrate has initiate proceedings under section 107, Cr. P.C. are of such a nature as may lead to an inference that they are intending to commit any breach of the peace. 6. I have considered the rival contentions mentioned above. In my opinion, interference under inherent powers is not called for in this case because it is mentioned in the police report and the statement of witnesses recorded by the police that there is a serious dispute between the petitioners on the one side and Radha Raman and his family on the other over the possession of the house and that such dispute lead to breach of the peace and may at any time again probably occasion a breach of the peace. The petitioners contend that the house was constructed by the petitioner No. 1 at his cost while his father Radha Raman has controverted his claim by saying that he is the owner of the house and that he has a right to live in it. In this state of affairs, it cannot be said that learned Executive Magistrate has committed any error in initiating proceedings under section 107, Cr. P.C. against the petitioners on the basis of the information received by him from the police station, Gandhinagar. In this state of affairs, it cannot be said that learned Executive Magistrate has committed any error in initiating proceedings under section 107, Cr. P.C. against the petitioners on the basis of the information received by him from the police station, Gandhinagar. It is entirely discretionary with the Executive Magistrate to initiate or not to initiate be proceedings on the basis of the information received by him.This court in exercise of its inherent powers is reluctant to interfere with such discretion,unless the discretion is exercised in an arbitrary manner on insufficient grounds. The responsibility for maintaining the peace is the responsibility of the Executive Magistrate, who is cognisant of the local situation & this Court would not be justified to interfere with his opinion unless it appears that he has not applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case or has not exercised his power in accordance with law or in a judicial manner. In the present case the order of the Executive Magistrate initiating proceedings under section 107, Cr. P.C. against the petitioners does not suffer from any such infirmity as mentioned above. However, I may observe that the executive Magistrate may drop the proceedings if at any time he is of opinion that danger to breach of the peace has ceased to exist. 7. The application under section 482, Cr. P.C. has, therefore, no force and is hereby dismissed with the observations that the order of the Executive Magistrate under sub-section (3) of section 116, Cr.P.C. directing the petitioners to execute bonds with sureties is fully set aside.Petition dismissed. *******