G.K. SHARMA, J.—This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 22nd July 82, passed by the SDM, Vallabh Nagar, in a proceeding u/ss. 107 & 116, Cr.P.C. 2. This case is of very peculiar circumstances where the person of legal profession, have been entangled. The petitioners are respectable persons, and petitioner No. 1 is an advocate of good reputation. These petitioners were arrested by the SHO on 22nd July 82 in village Kanod. They were handcuffed by the police and paraded in the entire town. While arresting them, they were not told under what law and authority, they were being arrested. They were then taken in an open truck under hand cuff, to Vallabh Nagar and produced before the S.D.M., where they came to know that a case u/s. 107 Cr.P.C. was registered against them. It is alleged that the S.D.M. had asked them that he would make them alright. They were asked by him to furnish one personal and one surety bond of Rs. 50000/- each. Upon the petitioners not furnishing such personal and surety bonds, they were sent to Sub-Jail, Mavli. They then applied for certified copies of the proceedings taken against them. From the copy of the order dated 21st July, 1982, it is found that a complaint was submitted by Bansilal and others, before the S.H.O., PS-Kanod, stating therein that on 17th July, 1982, the S.D.M. had called them and asked about construction of a Dharajnshala in village-Kanod. They expressed their resentment over the said construction, and also stated that the Dharamshala was being constructed by the prominent persons of the town, and that those prominent persons had threatened them that they would be put to ashes and their houses would be set on dynamites. The S.H.O. stated in the report that the Dharam-shala was being constructed on the government land and the work did not stop, in spite of the notice given to them, by the government, and in the opinion of the S.H.O. there were chances of breach of peace in the town. The S.D.M. after satisfying himself with the report of the SHO, agreed that there were chances of breach of peace in the town, and therefore, he ordered that the petitioners be arrested immediately under the provisions of s. 113, Cr. P.C. 3. These were the circumstances in which, the proceedings in this case, were initiated. 4. The S.D.M. after satisfying himself with the report of the SHO, agreed that there were chances of breach of peace in the town, and therefore, he ordered that the petitioners be arrested immediately under the provisions of s. 113, Cr. P.C. 3. These were the circumstances in which, the proceedings in this case, were initiated. 4. This matter relates to the year 1982. By the order of this Court, the petitioners were ordered to be released on bail, and the proceedings in the court below were stayed, while the case was pending there. But, the proceedings were initiated u/ss. 107/116, Cr. P.C, as there was apprehension of breach of peace, by the police. Now this is the year 1989 and there is no question of continuing the proceedings u/ss. 107/116 Cr. P.C. 5. After going through the entire record of the case and hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am constrained to write here that in a very strange manner, the SHO, Kanod as well as the SDM Vallabh Nagar proceeded in this case. Proceedings were initiated against some respectable persons of the Village Kanod, including one who was a leading lawyer of the place; and without assigning any reason and giving them any opportunity to explain the position, they were arrested and demanded to furnish personal and surety bonds of very high amount which clearly shows the vindictiveness of the authorities concerned. If there was any apprehension of breach of peace, the petitioners could be bound down for furnishing bond of some normal amount, but it was not at all fair on the part of the SDM to have asked them to furnish personal & surety bonds of Rs. 50,000/- each. This shows the mala fide intention of the learned Magistrate, in order to see that he would fix such amount for the bonds that the petitioner would not be able to furnish. In a matter of S. 107 Cr. P.C. it was most unjustified and unreasonable to have demanded personal and surety bonds of such high amount. The petitioners were respectable persons of the village, and they were not running away from that place, moreover, there is nothing on the record to show that their action was such that it could give apprehension of breach of peace in the area. The petitioners were respectable persons of the village, and they were not running away from that place, moreover, there is nothing on the record to show that their action was such that it could give apprehension of breach of peace in the area. The matter was regarding construction of a Dharamshala, which was being constructed by some prominent persons of the village, and it might be possible that they might have collected some subscriptions, but the fact was that the petitioners who were also expected of paying something for the construction of the said Dharamshala, showed resentment over this matter, and the SHO started the proceedings. This shows the motive and the nature of vindictiveness of the police officer; and it is painful to mention here that the learned Magistrate even did not understand the matter in the right way, and instead, colluded with the police officer. At least, he should have thought that in this matter where respectable persons of the village were involved, he should not have asked for such a high personal and surety bonds. The entire proceedings u/ss. 107/116, Cr. P.C. were not at all justified in these circumstances. 6. The learned counsel Tor the petitioners also brought to my notice, the case of R.J. Lakhia vs. State of Gujarat(1), wherein it was observed as under— "It is not necessary to emphasise the need of protecting the dignity and honour of any advocate practising in any law court in the State. If Judges shut their eyes to the dignity decorum and self respect of an advocate, why should the members of legal profession, who are the counterparts of the Adminis-tration of justice at all care for the dignity of the Judges. May it be realised that in a democratic set up the judges dignity can never be a one sided traffic, and can never be divorced from the dignity of an advocate. The concept of maintaining dignity and decorum of our law courts is essentially based of mutual respect for the Bar and the Bench. Even man to man dignity can only be preserved and maintained by reciprocation and mututal respect. This principle can never be lost sight of by any Judge, particularly when, for maintaining the respect or dignity of a court of law, there is the contempt of courts Act for the benefit of any presiding Judge." 7. Even man to man dignity can only be preserved and maintained by reciprocation and mututal respect. This principle can never be lost sight of by any Judge, particularly when, for maintaining the respect or dignity of a court of law, there is the contempt of courts Act for the benefit of any presiding Judge." 7. Regarding the present case, suffice it to say that there was no importance in the matter, which is of such praty petty nature, but, the learned SDM without applying his mind, in a very derogatory manner, acted and passed the impugned order, which even cannot be imagined. It could be tolerated, had it been an action of a police officer, but, it is really very surprising that an officer of the rank of Executive Magistrate, acted in such a derogatory manner. 8. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that all the proceedings u/s 107/116, Cr. P.C. initiated against the petitioners in this case, are bad in law being with mala fide intention only. 9. Consequently, the revision petition is accepted. The order of the SDM Vallabh Nagar, dated 22nd July 82 is set aside and all the proceedings u/ss, 107/116 Cr. P.C. against the petitioners are hereby quashed.