ORDER John Cranston, the opposite party no. 2 herein, filed an application before the Executive Magistrate, Calcutta alleging that the petitioner was running a brothel at premises no. 12A, Eliot Road, Calcutta, and praying for an order under s. 143 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Code' for short) against him. On that application, the learned Magistrate passed an order on 13.6.89 directing the Officer-in-Charge of Park Street Police Station to enquire into the matter and submit his report. In due course, he forwarded the report stating that the allegation made by opposite party no. 2 was not substantiated during enquiry. The opposite parry no. 2 then filed a petition challenging the report as biased and praying for a fresh enquiry by a superior officer. The learned Magistrate allowed the said petition by directing the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Immoral Traffic Department, Lalbazar, to get the matter inquired into by an Officer not below the rank of an Assistant Commissioner of Police. 2. Pursuant to the said direction, an Assistant Commissioner of Police held enquiry into the matter and submitted a report reiterating that the allegation made by the opposite party no. 2 was unfounded. The opposite party no. 2 assailed this report also and prayed for an opportunity to prove his allegation by adducing evidence. By his order dated 3.2.90, the learned Magistrate allowed the said prayer and drew up a proceeding under s. 143 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why he shall not be asked to stop repetition of the nuisance in public interest. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed this revisional application. 3. When the application was filed, this Court directed the petitioner to serve copy of the application upon the opposite parties so that it could he disposed of as contested one. Pursuant to the said direction, notices were sent to opposite party no. 2 by registered post and was also served upon the State. No one has, however. appeared on behalf of the State or the opposite party no. 2. 4. Pursuant to the said direction, notices were sent to opposite party no. 2 by registered post and was also served upon the State. No one has, however. appeared on behalf of the State or the opposite party no. 2. 4. It is true that for initiating a proceeding tinder s. 143 of the Code, a learned Magistrate is not required to obtain satisfaction from a police report, as he may do so on any other information also but then, as in the instant case, the learned Magistrate was not inclined to draw up a proceeding without obtaining a police report he was not justified in ignoring the two police reports and drawing up the proceeding on the basis of the averments made in the original application of the opposite party no. 2. Then again, if the learned Magistrate had cared to look into the provision of s. 143 of the Code, he would have found that an order thereunder may be made asking a person not to repeat or continue a public nuisance (emphasis supplied). It is evidently clear, therefore, that s. 143 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, presupposes prior committing of a public nuisance by the person concerned, repetition or continuance whereof is required to be stopped. 5. In absence of any material to indicate that there is a prior finding that the petitioner has had been running a brothel, the present proceeding must therefore be held to he not maintainable at all. 6. For the foregoing discussions, I allow this application and quash the impugned proceeding. Application allowed; proceeding quashed.