ORDER One Mrs. Prova Agarwal filed an application under S. 144(2) Cr. P.C. praying for an order of restraint against the three petitioners. On that application, the learned Executive Magistrate, Alipore called for report from the local police station and pending receipt of such report, passed the following interim order :- “In the meantime, Office-in-Charge, Ballygunge Police Station will see that the O.Ps. (the petitioners herein) do not create any sort of obstruction to the petitioner (Mrs. Provs Agarwal) in using the bathroom and privy and kitchen attached to the Petitioner’s rented flat.” Allegation wilful disobedience of the said order after promulgation, the learned Executive Magistrate filed a complaint and issue process against the petitioners Aggrieved thereby the petitioners moved this Court and obtained the present Rule for quashing for the proceeding. 2. The only point that has been urged in support of the Rule is that the above quoted interim order is not a valid order as it has not been passed in accordance with S. 144(2) Cr. P.C. and disobedience thereof will not amount to an offence under S. 188 I.P.C. In support of the contention, reliance has been placed upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Bachuram v. State, reported in AIR 1956 Calcutta 102 wherein it has been observed as follows:- “It was open to a person charge with disobedience to an order promulgate such order, to plead in defence that the order though made with jurisdiction was utterly wrong or improper on the merits.” On perusal of the facts of the instant case, I find much substance in the contention of the petitioner. 3. Under S. 144(1) Cr. P.C. an Executive Magistrate may direct a person to abstain from a certain act when he forms an opinion that such direction is likely to prevent obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed and for so doing he has to recorded an order stating the material facts of the case. Under S. 144(2) Cr. P.C. such an order can be passed ex parte in cases of emergency or in other cases as mentioned therein. 4. As already stated, in the instant case the learned Magistrate called for report from the local police station and that was obviously for the purpose of being satisfied whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding under S. 144(1) Cr. P.C. such an order can be passed ex parte in cases of emergency or in other cases as mentioned therein. 4. As already stated, in the instant case the learned Magistrate called for report from the local police station and that was obviously for the purpose of being satisfied whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding under S. 144(1) Cr. P.C. It is of course true that under S. 144 Cr. P.C. a police report is not a condition precedent for forming the requisite opinion there under but then the learned Magistrate did not from the requisite opinion on basis of the averments made in the application, for proceeding under S. 144(1), far less under S. 144(2) Cr. P.C. It must, therefore, be held that the interim order, which was allegedly violated, is patently bed in law. That necessarily means that the impugned proceeding is unsustainable. 5. I, therefore, allow this application and make this Rule absolute. The impugned proceeding is hereby quashed. Rule made absolute.