JUDGMENT : B.N. Misra, J. - The petitioner works as Store-Keeper in the Talcher Thermal Power Station. He is also the General Secretary of the Talcher Thermal Scheme Employees' Union which is a recognised union of the Orissa State Electricity Board. On 20-4-1983 the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Talcher initiated a proceeding under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code being Criminal Misc. Case No. 27 of 1983) Notice under section 113 of the Code was issued against the petitioner and he was asked to appear before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, on 24-4-1983. The petitioner appealed before the learned Magistrate on that date. It was ordered that the petitioner would be released on bail of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety for the like amount. The petitioner presented a person before the learned Magistrate, as his surety, but the learned Magistrate called for a report from the Tahasildar and in the meanwhile remanded the petitioner to custody. On 28-4-1983 for consideration of the bail matter the case was transferred to the Court of Shri C. Dwibedi, Executive Magistrate, Talcher who accepted the bail bond submitted by the petitioner, released him on bail and directed him to appear before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, on 29-4-1983. Being aggrieved by the proceedings initiated against him the petitioner has filed the present application before this Court and has prayed that the proceedings under section 107 of the Code pending against him should be quashed for the ends of justice. 2. Mr. Md. Yusuf Ahmad Rahim, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that there was absolutely no basis for a proceeding under section 107 of the Code against the petitioner. He has pointed out with reference to the lower Court records that the acts alleged to have been committed by the petitioner do not and cannot form the basis of a proceeding under section 107 of the Code. In this connection he has referred to the report dated 31-3-1983 submitted by the Officer-in-charge, Colliery P.S. to the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Talcher and also to the order of the learned Magistrate dated 20-4-1983. Obviously the learned Magistrate initiated proceedings against the petitioner on the basis of the police report. In this connection he has referred to the report dated 31-3-1983 submitted by the Officer-in-charge, Colliery P.S. to the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Talcher and also to the order of the learned Magistrate dated 20-4-1983. Obviously the learned Magistrate initiated proceedings against the petitioner on the basis of the police report. In this report it is noted that on 4-11-1982 Colliery P.S. Case No. 129 dated 5-11-1982 under section 448/323/506, I.P.C. read with section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act was registered against the petitioner on the report of a Security Officer of the Talcher Thermal Power Station. The petitioner was arrested on 25-3-1983 and released on bail on 26-3-1983. Immediately after his release from custody, the petitioner is alleged to have taken out a procession in association with his fellow workmen Without permission in violation of section 30 of the Police Act and disturbed the peace and tranquillity in the industrial area. It is further alleged that the petitioner has been instigating his fellow workmen not to perform their duty unless their demands are lied by the management. From the police report it is also that on 6-7-1982 the petitioner had threatened one contractor the purpose of extorting money from him. These are the allegations contained in the police report. It is lightly tended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged offence forming the subject-matter of Colliery P.S. Case No. 129 dated 5-11-1982 cannot be a ground for proceeding under section 107 of the Code. Also, if, as alleged, the petitioner violated the conditions of bail fixed by the Court, it is proper that the matter should be brought to the notice of the Court which granted bail for further action according to law. Courts dealing with security proceedings should bear in mind that the subject of section 107 of the Code is preventive and not punitive. The provisions contained in the section will be attracted only when there is reasonable apprehension that the conduct of a person is likely to lead to a breach of the peace or a disturbance public tranquillity. If any wrongful act in violation of section 30 of the Police Act has been committed by the petitioner he should be prosecuted, but a proceeding under section 107 of the Code is inappropriate. If any wrongful act in violation of section 30 of the Police Act has been committed by the petitioner he should be prosecuted, but a proceeding under section 107 of the Code is inappropriate. The overt act dated 6-7-1982 as alleged against the petitioner is so remote that it could not form the basis for the present proceeding. Upon earing counsel and on perusal of the records. I am satisfied that he materials available on record cannot form the basis of a proceeding under section 107 of the Code. 3. Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, has pointed out that in the facts of this case a revision will not lie as the matter out of which this revision arises is in an interlocutory state and only a notice to show cause has been issued to the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has, on the other hand, pointed out that his prayer in this case is to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner and this prayer can be granted by this Court under section 482 of the Code. Upon consideration and in the facts of this case. I am of opinion that continuation of the present proceedings under section 107 of the Code on the basis of the allegations contained in the police report would be an abuse of the process of Court. 4. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the proceedings in Misc. Case No. 27 of 83 pending in the file of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Talcher are hereby quashed for the ends of justice. Final Result : Allowed