JUDGMENT R.S. Thakur, J.—The petitioners in this writ petition are residents of village Basaral and so is respondent no. 5 Purshotam Chand. They all own lands in the said village. Respondent no. 5 in fact has an orchard on about 70 kanals of land and his remaining land consisting of 46 bighas is under his cultivation. His entire land is said to be situate by the side of a rivulet known as Maan khud’. Respondent No. 5 then got a scheme sanctioned for the construction/installation of a tube-well/pump set machine by the side of the said khud for the purposes of irrigating his land and orchard. 2. The case of the petitioners is that in order to take electric power for the purpose of running the said tube-well/pump set, the employees of respondent no. 6 (HPSEB) started digging the lands of the petitioners for installing electric poles thereon without the consent or permission of the petitioners. The petitioners then naturally protested against this illegal action on the part of respondent no. 6 and stopped its employees from carrying on any digging operation on their lands. On this, respondent no. 4 (S. D. O. (Civil), Electrical Division, Dhaneta), made a complaint to respondent no. 3 (Station House Officer Police Station, Nadaun), (SHO for short), on June 3, 1986 as a result of which the said S. H. O. initiated proceedings against the petitioners and others consisting of 18 persons including twelve ladies in the Court of respondent no. 2, (Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hamirpur), under section 107 read with section 150 of the Criminal Procedure Code vide report Annexure R-l which was received in the office of the respondent no. 2 on June 23, 1986. 3. Meanwhile, some of the petitioners instituted a Civil Suit on June 13, 1986 (Annexure P-l) in the Court of the Senior Sub-Judge at Hamirpur, seeking the relief to prohibit and restrain respondents nos. 3, 4 and 5 from entering upon their lands for "digging any electric pole thereon and also obtained an ad interim injunction order against the respondents to that effect. 3, 4 and 5 from entering upon their lands for "digging any electric pole thereon and also obtained an ad interim injunction order against the respondents to that effect. The respondents made an appearance in that Civil Suit on June 27, 1986 and gave an undertaking that they would neither enter upon the lands of the petitioners nor would they do any digging work for installation of electric poles and the application for interim injunction order was disposed of on that undertaking being given by the respondents. It is the further case of the petitioners, however, that despite this undertaking, the respondents concerned with the installation of the electric poles again trespassed on the lands of the petitioners on June 30, 1986 and started digging operation upon which the petitioners reported the matter to the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, Basaral in writing (Annexure P-6). The Pradhan Madan Lal, Up-Pradhan Hans Raj and Panch Kanshi Ram thereafter visited the spot on July 1, 1986 and vide their report (Annexure P-8) of the same date, found that the employees of respondent no. 6 had kept an electric pole on the lands of Babu Ram and Ram Saran and had also dug one pit each on their lands in the centre of their fields. Thereafter the petitioners filed contempt a petition in the Court of the Senior Sub-Judge, Hamirpur, alleging that the undertaking given by respondent no. 6 on June 27, 1986 had been violated which resulted in the notices being issued to the concerned respondents and the proceedings were still pending in the said Court, 4. Meanwhile, according to the petitioners in order to pressurise them to agree to the installation of electric poles on their lands, respondent no. 2 vide his order dated July 9, 1986, issued a show-cause notice to 18 persons including the petitioners in the proceedings under sections 107/150, Cr.P.C. referred to above as to why they should not be ordered to execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000 with (sic) one year from the date of this order and they were further directed to appear his court on August 11, 1986, "and furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000 for keeping peace each until the enquiry in the case is completed”. 2,000 with (sic) one year from the date of this order and they were further directed to appear his court on August 11, 1986, "and furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000 for keeping peace each until the enquiry in the case is completed”. On the subsequent hearing, on September 22, 1986, the counsel for the petitioners and others who were respondents in those proceedings moved an application before respondent no. 2 seeking exemption of lady respondents from personal appearance bat the Court refused to entertain the application. The petitioners have further averred that respondent no 4 then again made a complaint in writing (Annexure P-3) dated October 23, 1986, wherein it was asserted that on verbal order of respondent no. 2 to complete the installation of electric line before October 27, 1986, under the 20 Point Programme, he himself visited the spot but some ladies and men of the village caused obstruction and that this factum disentitled respondent no. 2 to continue the proceedings under sections 107/150 of the Criminal Procedure Code himself. 5. This is further case of the petitioners that this complaint by respondent no. 4 egged on the respondent no, 2 to resort to stringent illegal orders against the petitioners and others in those proceedings inasmuch as on November 17, 1986, he ordered that the petitioners and others be bound down under section 116 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code without holding any enquiry in this behalf and having material before him and adjourned the case to November 19, 1986 for execution of the bonds under section 116 of the Criminal Procedure Code which order was illegal and incapable of being executed and when they on the latter date expressed their inability to obey the said order of November 17, 1986, respondent no. 2 cancelled the bail bonds of the petitioners for their presence which naturally caused apprehension in the mind of the petitioners and others of their imminent arrest and hence the writ petition with the prayer that the respondents be restrained from entering upon the petitioners land and the proceedings against the petitioners and others under sections 107/150, Cr. P. C. pending before respondent no. 2 be quashed. 6. Some of the respondents filed their separate returns. 7. Respondent no. P. C. pending before respondent no. 2 be quashed. 6. Some of the respondents filed their separate returns. 7. Respondent no. 4 in his reply denied that any digging work was done on the land of the petitioners for installation of electric poles while taking the electric line to the tube-well/pump set of the respondent no. 5. He, however, admitted that contempt proceedings were pending in the Court of the Senior Sub-Judge at Hamirpur against him at the instance of the some of the petitioners. He also admitted having made the complaint, (Annexure R-4/1). 8. An affidavit-in-reply was filed by Kamal Kishore son of respondent no. 5 on his behalf wherein he admitted that since wires for the purposes of energising the pumping set on the land of his father from the pumping house which was across the land of the petitioners, the over head lines had to come over the lands of the petitioners according to him, initially there was a proposal to dig poles in the land of the petitioners and one pole had been dug in the lands belonging to the petitioners and other co-sharers of the pettioners. That thereafter, the petitioners filed a civil suit in the Court of the learned Senior Sub-Judge, Hamirpur, and then obtained an injunction order under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code and in those proceedings an undertaking was given by his father that no poles would be dug-in on the lands of the petitioners. He farther assorted that even when the poles were being dug-in on the lands of his father, the petitioners interfered in the digging-in operation as a result of which proceedings under sections 107/150 of the Criminal Procedure Code were initiated against 18 persons including the petitioners. 9. Similar is the reply of respondent no. 2 (S. D. M. Hamirpur). He asserted that as per the report of the respondent no. 3 (SHO Nadaun), the petitioners were causing obstruction to the digging-in of poles on the lands of respondent no. 5 and it was on this report that the proceedings under sections 107 and 150, Cr. P. C. were initiated against 18 persons of village Basaral including 12 ladies. He asserted that as per the report of the respondent no. 3 (SHO Nadaun), the petitioners were causing obstruction to the digging-in of poles on the lands of respondent no. 5 and it was on this report that the proceedings under sections 107 and 150, Cr. P. C. were initiated against 18 persons of village Basaral including 12 ladies. He admitted that 17 out of the 18 persons in those proceedings came present in his Court on August 11, 1986 when they were ordered to execute bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 2,000 with one surety in the like amount each which order was duly complied with. He also admitted that the counsel for the respondents before him in those proceedings applied for exemption of 12 ladies respondents from appearance and out of whom only two, namely, Tulsi Devi and Savitri Devi were granted exemption and the application qua the remaining ladies was rejected as the same was not found to be genuine. He also admitted having resorted to the provisions of section 116 (3), Cr. P. C. for maintaining peace till the conclusion of the enquiry on November 17, 1986 as he received the report of the SHO., P. S., Nadaun and the respondent no. 4, that the respondents in those proceedings had threatened the respondent no. 4 with dire consequences while he was getting the poles dug in on the land of respondent no. 5 and such a threat with dire consequences impelled him to conclude that there was imminent apprehension of Breach of peace and that he, therefore, rightly ordered the respondents in those proceedings to execute bonds in the sum of Rs. 4,000 each for maintaining peace. He also admitted that he bad inadvertently failed to mention this amount in the order itself but he had verbally directed the respondents with regard to the amount of the bonds, He, thereafter filed a supplementary affidavit wherein he stated that he was just on the threshold of his service career and has been working as S.D.O. (Civil) for the last about two years only. He further tendered his unconditional apology for any lapses on his part in the present case. He further tendered his unconditional apology for any lapses on his part in the present case. It was also deposed by him that although the stay order issued by this Court was received in his office on December 8, i986 but it was brought to his notice by the office only on December 12, 1986 and prior thereto he had no knowledge in this behalf and he also was ignorant about the pendency of civil litigation in this matter initiated at the instance of the petitioners and that he had no intention to disobey any judicial order of a civil court. 10. In the reply on behalf of respondent no. 6, (HPSEB), it was admitted that havipg regard to the provisions of section 12 of the Indian fclectricity Act, 1910, erection of poles for providing electric supply to the proposed tube-well of respondent no. 5 could not be done in the lands of the petitioners without their consent. It was further averred that when the work was started only one pole was erected in the land of the petitioners but the residents of village Basaral objected to the erection of pole in their land. At that time it was not known whether the land in question belonged to the petitioners or respondent no. 5 since both the lands are adjacent to each other but when this fact came to the notice of the department on the objection of the petitioners to the erection of the poles in their lands, the department stopped the further work and selected another line/ route for giving supply to the pump-set of respondent no. 5 entirely, through the land of respondent no. 5. While carrying out this new work, no pole has been erected in the land of the petitioners. 11. In the backdrop of the foregoing narration of facts, two questions arise for determination, namely, (1) whether respondent no. 6 or its employees had gone upon the lands of the petitioners for the purpose of digging-m poles thereon without the prior consent or permission of the petitioners or they were digging-in these poles only on the land of respondent no. 5 and the petitioners and other residents of village Basaral unjustifiably interfered with this pole digging operation and threatened the employees of respondent no. 5 and the petitioners and other residents of village Basaral unjustifiably interfered with this pole digging operation and threatened the employees of respondent no. 6 with dire consequences and as such the proceedings under sections 107 and 150 of the Criminal Procedure Code initiated before respondent no. 2 against the petitioners and others were justified ; (2) whether those proceedings under sections 107/150 are, per se, legally sustainable even if the answer to the first question is in the affirmative ? 12. We have no doubt in our mind that the reply to both these posers are in the negative. It is an admitted fact that the land of respondent no. 5 where the tube-well/pump set was intended to be installed is on one side by the side of khud ‘Maan and the electric wires for energising the said pump-set had to be inevitably brought over the lands of the petitioners. It can thus be safely presumed that the poles had to be dug-in on their lands for taking the wires to the pump-set. 13. Although, respondent no. 4 in his return has stoutly denied that any poles were dug-in on the lands of the petitioners but this is obviously a false affidavit sworn by him and the facts are otherwise. The son of the respondent no. 5 as also respondent no. 6 have in their respective reply affidavits categorically admitted that the employees of respondent no. 6 under the direction respondent no. 4 had in the first instance started dig-ging-in poles in the lands of the petitioners. It is thus obvious that when they were naturally offered resistence by the petitioners, respondent no. 4 in order to pressurise them to acquiesce in to the installation of such electric poles on their land, complained to the S.H.O. respondent no. 3 who apparently made a false report against 18 persons including as many as 12 ladies vide Annexure R-l, before respondent no. 2 for initiation of proceedings against them under sections 107/150, Cr. P. C. to the effect that they were interfering with the digging-in operation of electric poles on the land of respondent no. 5 and threatening the employees of respondent no. 6 with dire consequences, on June 8, 1986 as a result of which respondent no. 2 ordered the initiation of those proceedings against the petitioners and others on July 9, 1986. 14. 5 and threatening the employees of respondent no. 6 with dire consequences, on June 8, 1986 as a result of which respondent no. 2 ordered the initiation of those proceedings against the petitioners and others on July 9, 1986. 14. It is apparent from the file of the respondent no. 2 that respondent no. 4 had made two reports in respect of this case, the first one was dated May 31, 1986 to the S.H.O. Police Station, Nadaun. The relevant portion whereof is extracted as under:— "It is brought to your kind notice that the below mentioned inhabitants of village Basaral P.O. Basaral are creating unnecessary problem/harassment in the erection of line construction work and out work is stop from 15 days : 1. Bishan Dass. 2. Shankar Dass, and 3. Chandu Ram. Therefore you are requested to depute a police party to solve the above problem immediately. Matter stark urgent. Then the second one is dated October 23, 1986 to the S.D.O. (C) Hamirpur, which is as under:— "Sub: Erection of electric pole in village Basaral, Teh. Nadaun. H. P. Ref: Your birble (sic.) order. It is intimated to you that Sh. Purashotam Chand of village Basaral came to the office of under signed and requested me that we should start our electric const, work to his tube-well and he also informed me that S.D.M. Hamirpur has birbly ordered to complete this job before 27th October, 1986 positively. Therefore u/sd. alongwith field staff went there to complete the work, 23-10-1986 (erection of electric pole in the field of Sh. Purshotam Chand v. Basaral). Immediately after starting the work some women and men of vill. Basaral came there and started giving abuses and bad language/un-parliamentary language and by force they stopped 4he construction work. If such happenings occurred in our construction work, it will reflect the working of 20-point Programme and development of the Nation will be stopped. Therefore u/sd. request you to intervene personally and help us in this States development. Due to the interference of these villagers the Electricity Board lost Rs. 500 only which may please be recovered from them whose case is already lying pending in your Honble Court. This is for your kind information and immediate necessary action please." 15. Now it will be seen from these two letters that in the first one there is no mention whatsoever that respondent no. 500 only which may please be recovered from them whose case is already lying pending in your Honble Court. This is for your kind information and immediate necessary action please." 15. Now it will be seen from these two letters that in the first one there is no mention whatsoever that respondent no. 4 or other employees of respondent no. 6 were digging-in these poles in the land of respondent no. 5 and not of any of the petitioners. Then only three names have been given therein as those who interfered in the digging-in operation and there is no allegation of threat of dire consequences. In view of the clear admission on the part of the respondent no. 6 that initially digging was done on the land of the petitioners, however, it will be safe to hold that this digging-in operation had been started by the employees of respondent no. 6 in the lands of the petitioners at the time of first report and they were thus justified in offering resistance to such an illegal act, The entire complexion of the case, however, appears to have changed, on the arrival of the S. H. O. Police Station, Nadaun on the spot some time on June 3, 1986 when he obviously pressed into service his skill in fabricating a case against the petitioners by alleging that although pits for the poles were being dug on the land of respondent no. 5, yet the petitioners were unjustifiably interfering with this digging work and, that is the reason why respondent no. 4 also in his subsequent communication to respondent no. 2 S. D. ML Hamirpur, notes although just casually that when the pits were being dug on the land of respondent no. 5 some of the ladies of the village hurled abuses at him and other employees of respondent no. 6. 16. We are, however, of the opinion that this was a sheer camou flage and part of a design to pressurise the petitioners as neither the S. H. O. while making report nor the respondent no. 4 could be impressed with the knowledge that the land on which the pits were being dug was that of the respondent no. 5 and not of the petitioners. 4 could be impressed with the knowledge that the land on which the pits were being dug was that of the respondent no. 5 and not of the petitioners. The proper procedure on the part of the S. H. O. should have been to first call for the revenue officials concerned to ascertain as to whose was the land on which the electric poles were being dug on demarcation and only in that situation it could be said that these officials were justified in asserting that although the land on which the poles were being dug belonged to respondent no. 5 but the petitioners or other persons were unnecessarily creating hindrance in the construction work. 17. There are then other circumstances on record which clearly indicate that the employees of respondent no. 6 with the active connivance of respondent no. 2 were bent upon digging-in electric poles on the land of the petitioners. In the first instance, when the petitioners and other affected persons found that the employees of respondent no. 6 and the other connected government officials, were bent upon interfering with their land, they knocked the door of the civil court at Hamirpur and obtained an ad interim stay order on June 13, 1986 against the concerned respondents restraining them from interfering with their lands by way of digging-in these electric poles. It is also an admitted fact that thereafter the concerned respondents attended the Court on June 27, 1986 and gave an undertaking to the Court that no electric pole would be dug-in on the land of the petitioners and other affected persons. But despite this undertaking they again trespassed on the land of the petitioners on June 30, 1986 and started digging pits, on which, the petitioners made a complaint in writing in the panchayat concerned when the Pradhan Madan Lal, Up-Pradhan Hans Raj and one Panch Kanshi Ram visited the spot on the same day and made a report in writing (Annexure P-8) to the effect that respondent no. 6 had dug-in two pits one each in the fields of Babu Ram and Ram Saran in the middle of the fields and had also kept one electric pole on their fields. Thereafter the petitioners admittedly instituted contempt proceedings in the court of the Senior Sub-Judge, Hamirpur, against the concerned respondents which are still pending in that Court. 18. 6 had dug-in two pits one each in the fields of Babu Ram and Ram Saran in the middle of the fields and had also kept one electric pole on their fields. Thereafter the petitioners admittedly instituted contempt proceedings in the court of the Senior Sub-Judge, Hamirpur, against the concerned respondents which are still pending in that Court. 18. It is also pertinent to note that despite the stay order issued by the Court and the undertaking given by the concerned respondents not to trespass on the land of the petitioners on June 27, 1986, respondent no. 2 continued with the proceedings against the petitioners and others numbering 18 persons and ordered them to execute personal bonds in the amount of Rs. 2,000 each with one surety in the like amount on August 11, 1986 and refused to exempt ten ladies respondents from appearance in the Court out of twelve despite a written application in this behalf by their counsel. It may also be noted that although the communication of respondent no. 4 dated October 23, 1986 to respondent no. 2 was not only contemptuous in nature as it was intended to prejudice respondent no. 2 against the petitioners and others, respondent in those proceedings, but also disentitled respondent no. 2 from conducting further proceedings since it indicated a bias in respondent no. 2 by way of Annexure in expeditious execution of the scheme, yet the respondent no. 2 on the receipt of this letter passed an order on November 17, 1986 under section 116 (3), Cr. P. C. and the respondents in those proceedings were orally directed to furnish personal bonds in the amount of Rs. 4,000 to maintain peace and good behaviour so that the Assistant Engineer could execute his work/scheme. Admittedly the amount of bonds had not been specified in this order at all and the case proceedings were adjourned to November 19, 1986 for the execution of bonds as well as the evidence of the prosecution, although none was present for the State on the date of the order on behalf of which these proceedings were being prosecuted. 19. All the foregoing facts and the circumstances lead to no other conclusion but the one that the employees of respondent no. 19. All the foregoing facts and the circumstances lead to no other conclusion but the one that the employees of respondent no. 6 were out of technical necessity and feasibility required to take the electric lines over the lands of the petitioners and for that purpose they resorted to digging-in electric poles on the lands of the petitioners without their consent or permission and when the petitioners offered resistance they sought the help of the government officials like the police and the respondent no, 2 to force and coerce them (petitioners) to let the electric poles be dug in on their lands and the respondent no, 2 and the S. H. O. Nadaun, respondent no. 3 actively conuived at in this illegahact on their part by initiating false proceedings against them under sections 107/150. It is also strange to note that despite the order of this Court dated December 1, 1986, whereby these proceedings under sections 107/150 before the respondent no. 2 had been stayed and the said order was delivered in the office of the respondent no. 2 on December 8, 1986, the respondent no. 2 continued with the proceedings and issued an order on that very date whereby some of the respondents therein who were absent, were summoned through bailable warrants in the sum of Rs. 500 each returnable on January 5, 1987 and the petitioners have deposed on sworn affidavit that electric poles were removed from the land of the petitioners only on December 6, 1986. 20. As regards the second question, it would be but proper to take note of different orders passed by respondent no. 2 in the proceedings under sections 107/150. The first order in this behalf was passed by the respondent no. 2 on July 9, 1986 which reads as under: "This challan of its receipt from the Station House Officer, Nadaun was presented before me today. I have gone through the enquiry report of the police authorities and the statements of witnesses enclosed with the challan file as well as application of the complainant. In the challan file has been reported by the Police authorities that the respondents are of in separate nature and there is an apprehension of a breach of the peace on their part. In the challan file has been reported by the Police authorities that the respondents are of in separate nature and there is an apprehension of a breach of the peace on their part. From the perusal of material which is on the record of the challan file I am satisfied that there does exist circumstances leading to a breach of the peace on the part of the respondents in the immediate near future. Accordingly, I call upon the respondents to show-cause why they should not be ordered to execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000 with one year from the date of this order. It is further ordered that a notice under section 111, Cr. P. C. be issued to appear in my court on U-S-1986 and furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000 for keeping peace each until the enquiry in the case is completed." On August 11, 1986, 17 out of the 18 respondents were present and each of them was directed to file the personal bond in the amount of Rs. 2,000 with one surety in the like amount and in default to remain in Judicial lock up. The case was then fixed for September 22, 1986. The order-sheet of September 22, 1986 is as follows: — "Called Present J. C. Kaushal for the complainant and all the respondents are present in person. The case was fixed for today for the appearance of the remaining respondents who are also present. The respondents have given statement that they do not have any objection if the electricity line is laid in their own land. Their statement is recorded. Hence in view of their statement the complainant is given one month time to install the line and compliance be made according to the statements made in the court and be intimated to court on 27-10-1986." The subsequent order dated October 27, 1986 is as follows:— "Called. Present none for the State and respondent, Bishan Dass, Babu Ram, Shanker Dass were present. One month time had given to layout the line because respondents had given statements not to intervene in the working of the deptt. But the S.D.O. (Elec) Dhanela has given in writing that when he went to the spot for the execution of the work he was asked to stop the work. One month time had given to layout the line because respondents had given statements not to intervene in the working of the deptt. But the S.D.O. (Elec) Dhanela has given in writing that when he went to the spot for the execution of the work he was asked to stop the work. Hence to proceed further all the respondents be summoned and case is fixed for reply on 17-11-1986." On November 17, 1986 none was present for the State whereas all the 18 respondents were present and the Court passed the following orders:— "Called. Present None for the State and respondent from serial no. 1 to 18 are present. The case was fixed for reply on 17-11-1986 for today that is filed by the respondents. The Assistant Engineer H. P. S. E. B. Nadaun has filed an application stating therein that on 23-10-1986 he went to the site for the execution of his departmental work but he was not allowed to do so and thereafter he left the spot and also requested to take action against the respondent against whom the proceeding is pending. But he has not specifically mentioned the name of any of the respondent which could be bound down under section 116 (3) to maintain peace and good behaviour. Therefore, in view of his application it is evident that it has become necessary to bond them all under section 116 (3) so that the Assistant Engineer could execute his work/scheme. Hence 1 hereby order that all the respondents should execute bond under section 116 (3) for maintaining peace and good behaviour till the conclusion of inquiry. Hence the case to come up for prosecution evidence as well as execution of bonds under section 116 (3) on 19-11-1986. First three witnesses be summoned." On November 19, 1986 respondent no. 2 passed the following orders:— "Case called. Present none for the State and respondent from serial no. 1 to 18 are present in person. The case was fixed for today for execution of bonds under section 116 (3) by all the respondent. The respondents were asked to furnish bond. They were ordered/directed repeatedly to furnish the bonds but the counsel for the respondent as well as the respondent refused to furnish bond under section 116 (3) for maintaining peace and good behaviour. The case was fixed for today for execution of bonds under section 116 (3) by all the respondent. The respondents were asked to furnish bond. They were ordered/directed repeatedly to furnish the bonds but the counsel for the respondent as well as the respondent refused to furnish bond under section 116 (3) for maintaining peace and good behaviour. The counsel respondent filed an application for the long adjournment of the case since the respondent wanted to file revision of the order dated 17-11-1986. The application of the counsel were considered and rejected on the ground that if he wants or respondent wants to file revision of the order of this court they are free to do so, but for filing revision there is no necessity to adjourn the case since it is the proceeding of a preventive nature, Hence the application of the counsel respondent is rejected. Therefore in disobedience of the order passed on 17-11-1986. I hereby cancel the bail and surety bonds of respondents Bishan Dass, Shankar Dass, Babu Ram, Birbal, Hans Raj at serial no. 5 and Hans Raj at serial no. 6 who are the main respondent on whose directions the other lady respondents work. The copy of this order be sent to S. H. O. Nadaun for further necessary action. Hence the case is fixed for the evidence of the prosecution i. e. State 8-12-1986." 21. We may now take a look at the relevant provisions pertaining to the proceedings in question. The genesis of the proceedings of this nature relates to the provisions of section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code which envisages that the Executive Magistrate is empowered to initiate such proceedings when he receives information that any person is likely to commit breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or he is likely to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb public tranquillity and he is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against such person(s) and he is then empowered to require such person is) to show-cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond (with or without sureties) for keeping the peace for such period not exceeding one year as he thinks fit. Sections 108, * * * * 109, * * * * 110 * * * * Then section 111, Cr. Sections 108, * * * * 109, * * * * 110 * * * * Then section 111, Cr. P. C. says: “When a Magistrate acting under section 107, section 108, section 109 or section 110, deems it necessary to require any person to show-cause under such section, he shall make an order in writing, setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force, and the number, character and class of sureties (if any) required." Then section 112 lays down that if the person in respect of whom such order is made is present in Court, it shall be read over to him, or, if he %o desires, the substance thereof shall be explained to him and in case he is not present in the Court then according to the provisions of section 113 such Magistrate shall issue a summons requiring him to appear before the Court. There is a proviso to section 113 which also vests the Magistrate with powers to issue warrant of arrest if upon the report of the police officer or other information (the substance of which report or information shall be recorded by the Magistrate) there is reason to fear the commission of a breach of the peace and that such breach of the peace cannot be prevented otherwise than by the immediate arrest of such person. Under section 114, it has been enjoined upon the Executive Magistrate to send a copy of the order made under section 111 with the summons or warrant as the case may be for service upon the person concerned. Section 115 gives such Magistrate the powers to permit such person against whom the proceedings have been instituted to appear by a pleader. Then the last important section is section 116. The relevant provisions whereof are as under: "116. Inquiry as to truth of information.—(I) When an order under section III has been read or explained under section 112 to a person present in Court, or when any person appears or is brought before a Magistrate in compliance with, or in execution of, a summons or warrant, issued under section 113, the Magistrate shall proceed to inquire into the truth of the information upon which action has been taken, and to take such further evidence as may appear necessary. (2) Such inquiry shall be made, as nearly as may be practicable, in the manner hereinafter prescribed for conducting trial and recording evidence in summons cases. (3) After the commencement, and before the completion of the inquiry under sub-section (1) the Magistrate, if he considers that immediate measures are necessary for prevention of a breach of the peace or disturbance of the public tranquility or the commission of any offence or for the public safety, may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct the person in respect of whom the order under section 111 has been made to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour until the conclusion of the inquiry, and may detain him in custody until such bond is executed or, in default of execution, until the inquiry is concluded : Provided that— (a) no person against whom proceedings are not being taken under section 108, section 109, or section 110 shall be directed to execute a bound for maintaining good behaviour ; (b) the conditions of such bond, whether as to the amount thereof or as to the provision of sureties or the number thereof or the pecuniary extent of their liability, shall not be more onerous than those specified in the order under section 111. (4) * * * * (5) * * * * (6) * * * * (7) * * * * 22. The apex Court in Madhu Limayes case, AIR 1971 SC 2481, has given a succinct and lucid exposition with regard to the proceedings like the one in hand in Chapter VIII of the Criminal Procedure Code in the following manner: The first sub-section of the section (107) arms certain Magistrates of specified classes with the power to require a person, who is likely to commit a breach of the peace or to disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace, or disturb the public tranquillity to execute a bond and fufnish security for keeping the peace. The sub-section howeverlays down that the Magistrate shall proceed "in the manner hereinafter provided". The Chapter then contains elaborate provisions for the procedure which the Magistrate must follow. The sub-section howeverlays down that the Magistrate shall proceed "in the manner hereinafter provided". The Chapter then contains elaborate provisions for the procedure which the Magistrate must follow. Since the liberty of the person is involved, not because of anything he has done but because of the likelihood of breach of the peace or disturbance of the public tranquillity by reason of some act on his part, the provisions must obviously be strictly followed. Since the action is taken on the mere opinion of the Magistrate, the provisions of the Chapter naturally ensure that no case of harassment arises. The first requirement is that the Magistrate must pass an order in writing setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force and the number, character and class of sureties (if any) required under section 112. This order may be passed in the presence of the person to be bound over and even in his absence. This is clear from the provisions of the two sections that follow. Section 113 deals with the procedure when the person is present in the Court. Then the Magistrate must read over the order to the person and if he so desires, the substance of it must be explained to him. When the person is not present in Court, the next section applies. The Magistrate shall then issue a summons to him to appear and if he is in custody, the Magistrate shall issue a warrant to the person who has his custody to produce him before the Court. If there is need of immediate arrest of the person, the Magistrate on the report of the Police Officer or upon other information (the substance of which report or information is to be recorded in writing by the Magistrate) may issue a warrant for the arrest of the person. This action can only be taken if there is reason to fear that a breach of the peace cannot be prevented except by the arrest of the person (section 114). Whenever a summons or a warrant is issued under section 114, a copy of the order made under section 112 must be sent and delivered to the person (section 115). This action can only be taken if there is reason to fear that a breach of the peace cannot be prevented except by the arrest of the person (section 114). Whenever a summons or a warrant is issued under section 114, a copy of the order made under section 112 must be sent and delivered to the person (section 115). The Magistrate is empowered to dispense with the personal appearance of the person and allow him to appear by a pleader (section 116). In all cases where the person is present in Court or is brought there by a warrant in the two cases mentioned or appears on summons and the Order under section 112 is read over to him or sent to him with the warrant, the Magistrate obtains jurisdiction over the person. He is then required to proceed under section 117. This section is divided into several subsections but we are concerned only with the first three sub-sections. Under the first sub-section, the Magistrate shall proceed to enquire into the truth of the information upon which he has so far acted and take such further evidence as may appear necessary. Under the second section the enquiry is a trial and the procedure applicable to the trial and recording of evidence in summons cases is enjoined. Under the third sub-section, a power has been conferred on the Magistrate to ask for a bond with or without sureties to keep the peace and be of good behaviour pending the completion of the-enquiry. This power is used if the Magistrate considers that immediate measures are necessary for prevention of a breach of the peace or disturbance of the public tranquillity or the commission of any offence or for the public safety. This power is used if the Magistrate considers that immediate measures are necessary for prevention of a breach of the peace or disturbance of the public tranquillity or the commission of any offence or for the public safety. He does so for reasons to be recorded in writing and if the person does not execute such bond, the Magistrate is empowered to detain him in custody till the bond is executed or the enquiry is concluded." Although when their lordships of the Supreme Court were considering these provisions, they were governed by the old Criminal Procedure Code which was in force prior to 1st of April, 1974 whereas the instant proceedings are under the new Code but this is of no consequence since these provisions in the new Code are part materia with those of the old Code and thus the ruling proprio-vigore governs the instant proceedings of this nature under Chapter VIII. 23. Thus as the apex Court has ruled, the order that the Magistrate concerned seized of such proceedings, has to pass under section 111 must set forth in writing the substance of the information received, the bond to be executed and the terms for which it is to be enforced and the number, character and class of sureties, if any, required. This is a peremptory requirement of law and any infirmity therein must inevitably vitiate the entire proceedings. The order that the respondent no. 2 has passed in the instant proceedings, however, suffers from glaring infirmities which renders it wholly invalid. 24. In the first place, the respondent no. 2 has failed to set forth the substance of the information upon which he initiated these proceedings. All that he has stated in that order is that the respondents out of whom as many as 12 are ladies have been reported to be of desperate character whereas as per the report of the S.H.O. Nadaun, respondent no. 3, the allegations against them were that they were obstructing the employees of respondent no. 6 including respondent no. 4 from digging-in electric poles on the land of respondent no. 5 with which they had nothing to do and were threatening the employees of respondent no. 6 with dire consequences in case they continued digging-in the electric poles on the land of respondent no. 5. 6 including respondent no. 4 from digging-in electric poles on the land of respondent no. 5 with which they had nothing to do and were threatening the employees of respondent no. 6 with dire consequences in case they continued digging-in the electric poles on the land of respondent no. 5. Obviously, there were no allegations against the respondents in those proceedings when they were produced before respondent no. 2 as a result of the show-cause notice issued under this order and as such it can be safely presumed that in such circumstances they were necessarily prejudiced in their defence. However, this is not enough. By the same order, respondent no. 2 has also called upon the respondents therein to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000 each for keeping peace until the enquiry in the case is completed. This apparently, respondent no. 2 could not do at that stage of the proceedings as this could be done only at that stage of the proceedings when he had entered upon the enquiry into the truth of the information which had actuated him to initiate the proceedings under sub-section (3) of section 116 only and this again is a blatant violation of the provisions of law. The Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye’s case (supra), has observed: — "The Magistrate could only ask for an interim bond if he could not complete the enquiry and during the completion of the enquiry’ postulates a commencement of the enquiry, which means commencing of a trial according to the summons procedure. It was not given to the Magistrate to postpone the case and hear nobody and yet ask the petitioners to furnish a bond for good conduct." 25. On September 22, 1986 the respondent no. 2 purports to have recorded the statements of respondents that they had no objection in case the electric poles were dug in the land of respondent no. 5 and even if the electric wire is taken upon their lands and he then gave the complainant (only goodness knows who the complainant was), one months time to install the line and ordered that compliance be intimated accordingly to the Court on October 27, 1986 to which date the proceeding were adjourned. 5 and even if the electric wire is taken upon their lands and he then gave the complainant (only goodness knows who the complainant was), one months time to install the line and ordered that compliance be intimated accordingly to the Court on October 27, 1986 to which date the proceeding were adjourned. This Court thus is left with clear impression that these proceedings against the respondents were not to keep peace or public tranquillity but to compel them to allow the electric line to be taken to the pump-set of respondent no. 5. This is further clear from the next order of October 27, 1986 in which the respondent no. 2 has referred to the letter of October 23, 1986 of respondent no. 4 already taken note of, and further observes that since as per his report the respondents before him again intervened during the pole digging operation, the proceedings will be taken up further against all these respondents and he summoned them all for November 17, 1986. 26. The order of November 17, 1986 discloses that the respondent no. 2 purports to have proceeded against the respondents before him under subsection (3) of section 116 ‘to maintain peace and good behaviour", since as per the report of respondent no. 4, dated October 23, 1986 they did not allow respondent no. 4 to execute the departmental work and he had requested respondent no. 2 to take action against the respondents. Although he noted in the same order that the so-called complaint of respondent no. 4 did not specifically mention the name of any of the respondents as having obstructed the execution of the work, but he felt it necessary that all the respondents before him be made to execute bonds under section 116 (3) so that the respondent no. 4 could execute his work/scheme. He then ordered that all the respondents should execute bonds under section 116 (3) for maintaining peace and good behaviour, (underlining supplied) till the conclusion of the enquiry and then adjourned the case to November 19, 1986, that is, for the third day for execution of such bonds. It is clear that this order too is also riddled with illegalities. He then ordered that all the respondents should execute bonds under section 116 (3) for maintaining peace and good behaviour, (underlining supplied) till the conclusion of the enquiry and then adjourned the case to November 19, 1986, that is, for the third day for execution of such bonds. It is clear that this order too is also riddled with illegalities. Obviously till this order, the respondents before him had no notice of the allegations against them and they had in their reply rightly stated that there was no case against them and the proceedings were mala fide. Yet the respondent no. 2 proceeded against them under section 116 (3) as according to him they had obstructed the digging in of poles on the land of respondent no. 5. The respondent no. 2, however, could proceed under section 116 (3) only in case any fresh material had come before him during the course of the enquiry which had impelled him to consider that immediate measures were necessary for prevention of breach of the peace or disturbance of public tranquillity. However, there was no such material before respondent no. 2 except the letter dated October 23, 1986 referred to above. This Court has, however, already held that this letter was not only contemptuous in nature but even disentitled the respondent no. 2 himself from taking up these proceedings any further since it discloses that respondent no. 2 himself was personally interested in getting this scheme of taking electricity to the pump-set of respondent no. 5 and has issued verbal orders in this behalf and at the same time he was keeping the respondents before him under duress through these proceedings to refrain from Agitating the matter even if their own lands were obviously affected by the execution of the scheme. This Court strongly deprecates this action on the part of respondent no. 4 in sending this type of communication dated October 23, 1986 to the respondent no. 2 and further the conduct of respondent no. 2 in acting upon such a communication and treating this as additional evidence in the proceedings as this practice cannot be allowed to be followed in a Court of law. Even if such a communication was to be placed on the record of the file, the proper course for the State should have been to make an application through the A. P. P. before respondent no. Even if such a communication was to be placed on the record of the file, the proper course for the State should have been to make an application through the A. P. P. before respondent no. 2 for permission to allow this type of evidence to be brought on record and even in that case it was imperatively required of the second respondent to record the statement of its author on oath before the same could be acted upon. Further the respondents vide this order were called upon to execute bond for maintaining peace and good behaviour but, apparently, they could be called upon to execute such bonds for maintaining good behaviour only in case they were proceeded against under sections 108 or 109 or 110 which was not the case here and, therefore, the respondent no. 2 was in terms prohibited by the proviso (a) to sub-section (3) of section 116. Again, although no amount has been specified in this order for which the respondents were required to execute bond but respondent no. 2 in his return before this Court has admitted that he had asked the respondents before him to execute bonds in the sum of Rs. 4,000 each. This again he was debarred from doing under proviso (b) to sub-section (3) of section 116 since in the show-cause notice under section ill he had called upon them to show cause why they be not required to execute a bond in the sum of Rs. 2.00J to keep peace for a period of one year and the proviso in terms lays down that the amount of the bond shall not be more onerous than the one specified in order under section 111. The order is thus thoroughly illegal and in view of this the entire proceedings under sections 107 and 150 against the respondents therein are vitiated and are hereby quashed. 27. We may also note, not without certain amount of dismay, that the respondent no. 2 in this entire matter has exhibited a behaviour which cannot be said to be less than presumptuous. 27. We may also note, not without certain amount of dismay, that the respondent no. 2 in this entire matter has exhibited a behaviour which cannot be said to be less than presumptuous. We have already observed that the respondents herein proceeded to execute this tube-well/pump-set scheme in such a high handed manner that the petitioners and the other affected persons were driven to institute a civil suit and obtain a restraint order against the concerned respondents restraining them from digging-in electric poles on the lands of the petitioners and despite the fact that an undertaking on June 27, 1986 was given in the Court that this would not be done, the respondent no. 4 continued with such illegal acts as he was detected doing so on June 30, 1986 and then he sought the help of respondent no. 2 for execution of these illegal acts by getting initiated the proceedings before him under section 107 against the petitioners and others through the police. The respondent no. 2 then despite the undertaking in the Civil Court continued harassing the petitioners herein and others numbering 18 including 12 ladies through these illegal proceedings in his enthusiasm to see that the water-supply scheme of respondent no. 5 gets through. He even did not care to call for the report of any revenue officer/official to ascertain whether the electric poles were actually being dug in the land of respondent no. 5 or the petitioners and others. In fact this type of proceedings on the facts and in the circumstances were wholly uncalled for and motivated. We have already found that the petitioners and others were offering obstruction only when respondent no. 4, and his labourers wanted to dig-in electric poles on their lands without their consent or permission and they certainly had a right to do so and there was no question of such an act amounting to commission of breach of peace or public tranquillity. 28. It is clear that in the first report the respondent no. 4 had named only three persons who had offered resistence and the S.H.O. Nadaun, respondent no. 3 had intentionally and maliciously reported to respondent no. 2 against 18 persons which included as many as 12 ladies which was obviously with an ulterior motive to harass them and put them under duress. The proceedings in question before the respondent no. 4 had named only three persons who had offered resistence and the S.H.O. Nadaun, respondent no. 3 had intentionally and maliciously reported to respondent no. 2 against 18 persons which included as many as 12 ladies which was obviously with an ulterior motive to harass them and put them under duress. The proceedings in question before the respondent no. 2 then again reflect the same basic idea working in his mind, namely, to brow-beat and harass these persons into acquiescence and submission to his dictates and in his enthusiasm he not only over looked the contempt proceedings initiated by the petitioners in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Hamirpur, in the civil suit against some of the respondents but also acted in defiance of the order of this Court. 29. This Court on December 1, 1986 issued an ad interim order directing the stay of these proceedings under sections 107 and 150 and more particularly the orders of November 17 and 19, 1986. The order was passed in the presence of the learned Advocate General for the State and was even delivered in the Court of respondent no. 2 on December 8, 1986. Despite this, however, he made an order in the proceedings on the same day, that is, December 8, 1986, issuing bailable warrant against some of the respondents in those proceedings who were not present for January 5, 1987 in the sum of Rs. 500 each. The only explanation, that the respondent no. 2 has tendered for doing so is that although the order was delivered in his office on December 8, 1986 but the same was brought to his notice only on December 12, 1986. This position, however, cannot be accepted as tenable. As already stated, the order was passed in the presence of the learned Advocate General for the State and as such the respondent no. 2 being the employee of the State is deemed to have had notice of the same on that very day. However, at least he would be deemed to have bad knowledge of this order the moment the order was delivered in his court on December 8, 1986 and in these circumstances he could not have passed an order of this nature on that day. However, at least he would be deemed to have bad knowledge of this order the moment the order was delivered in his court on December 8, 1986 and in these circumstances he could not have passed an order of this nature on that day. Conceding, however, that this stay order was brought to his notice only on December 12, 1986, even then it was his bounden duty to have immediately passed another order revising the order of December 8, 1986, and recalling the bailable warrant unexecuted if already issued, but neither the record shows that he did so nor does his reply reflect as to what action he took when the stay order of this Court was brought to his notice, 30. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we would have taken a serious view of the conduct and behaviour of respondent no. 2 but since he has tendered unconditional apology and has also stated that he has just started his career as S. D. O. (Civil), we only let him off with a warning to be careful in future. 31. We also feel it necessary to observe that the proceedings like the one in question are of a preventive nature. All the same they impinge upon the liberty of an individual which is of paramount importance and value and a fundamental right guaranteed under our Constitution. It is thus imperative duty of the Court seized of such proceedings to see that all the relevant provisions of law touching those proceedings are strictly complied with and the liberty of the citizen is not allowed to be jeopardised on frivolous and baseless allegations towards achieving a particular end as has been done in the case in band. Thus a legal and pious duty is cast upon such officers while acting judicially in proceedings of this nature to cast away and forget their other executive roles which they might have to play as Executive Officers and not to resort to compulsive acts of this nature to achieve a particular end as administrative officers howsoever laudable, as appears to have been done in the case in hand, as that would amount to gross abuse of his judicial powers. 32. In view of the above discussion, it is ordered that the proceedings under sections 107 and 150, Cr. P. C. against the petitioners and others pending before the respondent no. 32. In view of the above discussion, it is ordered that the proceedings under sections 107 and 150, Cr. P. C. against the petitioners and others pending before the respondent no. 2 be and are hereby quashed. It is further ordered that a writ shall issue against the respondents restraining them from digging-in any electric poles on the land of the petitioners and others similarly situated except in accordance with law. We also feel that respondent no. 6 is liable to pay exemplary costs in this case since its employees and agents started digging-in electric poles on the land of the petitioners in an illegal manner and persisted in these acts of commission and omission by adopting illegal and dubious means which not only drove the petitioners to file a civil suit but they also faced considerable hardship and harassment by virtue of the illegal proceedings under sections 107/150 of the Criminal Procedure Code and finally the petitioners had to knock the doors of this Court. We, therefore, order that respondent no. 6 shall pay the costs of this petition which are quantified at Rs. 2,000 and the rule is made absolute. The costs be deposited in the Registry within a period of two months from today. Rule made absolute. -