ORDER Heard both sides. 2. This application under section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 26. 9.87, passed by the S. D. M., Sadar, Ranchi, who had drawn up a proceeding under section 107 Cr. P. C. against these two petitioners along with others, and had issued notice against them calling upon them to show cause as to why they should not be asked to execute a bond of Rs. 1000/- each, for keeping peace for one year. 3. Mr. Chhabra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that there is absolutely nothing in the petition filed against Kuldip Singh Chawla and only vague allegations have been made. So far petitioner no. 2 Daljeet Singh is concerned, who happened to be the brother-in-law of petitioner no. 1, he resides at Ramgarh and not at the place where the alleged incident had taken place on 25.9.87. 4. It is the admitted position that there is absolutely nothing in the notice to show that petitioner no. 1 had contributed anything or had done any wrong or committed any overt-act, so that any reasonable apprehension of breach of peace was apprehended at his instance. Similar is the position, so far petitioner no. 2 is concerned. The notice is absolutely vague, so far petitioner no. 2 is concerned. Nothing has been shown in the notice against petitioner no.2 also. The notice only shows that breach of peace is apprehended between the parties because of the penaency of a case under the B. B. C. Act. It is admitted position that these two petitioners are not the parties. The allegation was that some of the persons had put pistol in the mouth, as a result of which he had sustained injury. Therefore, there is nothing that any of the petitioners had participated in the occurrence. 5. From the facts and circumstances stated above, it is clear that there was abosolutely no material placed before the Magistrate to formulate his opinion that any breach of peace was apprehended at the instance of any of these two petitioners. It is the fundamental requirement of the law that there must be some material to show that the petitioner had committed any overt act or any wrong. It is the fundamental requirement of the law that there must be some material to show that the petitioner had committed any overt act or any wrong. So that reasonable apprehension of breach of peace can be apprehended at the instance of the petitioners, and for that purpose specific overt-act must be assigned against each individual person, who is proceeded against under section 107 Cr. P. C. and if it is not done, drawing of a proceeding against that person for want of specific overt act or wrong cannot sustain in law. For the reasons set-forth above, the instant proceeding initiated against the petitioners is fit to be quashed, which in substance, amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. 6. In the result, this application is allowed and the impugned order, drawing up the proceeding against the petitioners, under section 107 Cr. P. C. is hereby quashed.