JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, J. - An interesting point raised in this application is whether death of a person arraigned as first party in a proceeding u/s 10, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'Cr. P.C.' brings an automatic end to the proceeding. 2. Since the dispute revolves round the aforesaid question of law, detailed reference to the facts situation is unnecessary. Briefly stated, same is as follows : 3. On the basis of allegation made by late Manjana Samal, wife of petitioner Rabinarayan Samal, a proceeding u/s 107, Cr. P.C. was initiated. She was described as the first party in the proceeding. After opposite party Nos. 1 to 8 appeared, they were inquired to execute interim peace bonds in terms of Section 116(3), Cr. P.C., which they did on 28.8.1992. During pendency of the proceeding Manjana breathed her last on 30.8.1992. Opp. party Nos. 1 to 8 filed an application to drop the proceeding on the ground that after her death, the proceeding did not survive. Reliance was placed on Section 256, Cr.P.C., Petitioner appeared in the proceeding and resisted the claim stating that Manjana's grievance was not personal and a bare perusal of the petition filed for initiation of the proceeding and the petition in terms of Section 116, Cr.P.C. clearly establish that she and other members of her family apprehended danger to life and property. The opposition did not find acceptance by the Executive Magistrate who dropped the proceeding. 4. According to Sk. Nizamuddhin, learned Counsel for petitioner, Section 256 has no application to the facts of the case and in any event, proceeding u/s 107, Cr.P.C. cannot be dropped so long as apprehension of breach of peace continues. Mr. S. Dey on behalf of opposite party Nos. 3 and 8 submitted that the death of original complainant brought an end to the proceeding, and it is open to the petitioner if he is so advised to file a fresh petition. 5. At this juncture it is necessary to refer to Sections 107 116 and 256, Cr.P.C. The object of Section 107 is prevention and not punishment for commission of an offence. It is not intended to punish persons for anything that they have done in the past, but to prevent them from doing in future something that might occasion a breach of peace. It is not intended to punish persons for anything that they have done in the past, but to prevent them from doing in future something that might occasion a breach of peace. This provision is a measure for protection of the society and nothing else. A proceeding under-Section 116, instituted u/s 107 of the Cr.P.C. is certainly not an enquiry and it is not to be equated with trial. Law has laid down a procedure for such proceeding and as such the procedure for the enquiry should be 'as nearly as may be practicable' the same as in summons cases. The phrase 'conducting trials' is a very comprehensive one. No order is required by the Magistrate for terminating proceedings u/s 107. By statutory prescription the termination is automatic. Therefore, after six months expire, proceedings come to an end. If the Magistrate desires to extend the period for completing the enquiry for special reason, it is incumbent upon him to exercise that jurisdiction within a period of six months starting from the commencement of the proceedings. That jurisdiction cannot be exercised after the six months period expires. Thereafter the proceedings under Sections 107/116 stand automatically terminated. Section 256 deals with the situation for non-appearance or death of the complainant. By addition of new Sub-section (2) to Section 256, consequences flowing from non-appearance have been made applicable to absence due to death of complainant. Section 256 cannot in all cases be made applicable to proceedings u/s 107. There may be cases where one person makes the grievance on behalf of many, as is the case at hand, and merely because for the sake of convenience he or she is described as first party in the proceeding, his or her death cannot bring an end to the proceeding. As indicated above, Section 107, Cr. P.C. is aimed at persons who cause a reasonable apprehension of conduct likely to lead to a breach of the peace or a disturbance of public tranquillity. The magistrate is authorised to take proceedings against a person if upon information he is satisfied that he is likely--(i) to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity, or (ii) to do any wrongful act that may probably product the same retult. The magistrate is authorised to take proceedings against a person if upon information he is satisfied that he is likely--(i) to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity, or (ii) to do any wrongful act that may probably product the same retult. Pending the completion of the enquiry, a person proceeded against u/s 107 may in a case of emergency be required to execute an interim bond u/s 116(3). Section 107 comes into operation where the Executive Magistrate receives information that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity, or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace, or disturb the public tranquillity. If he is of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may in the manner prescribed under the Cr. P.C., requires such person 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 may think fit. 6. The Executive Magistrate acts on information received and is more concerned with an orderly society. The complainant in a given case is the source of information on which he acts. To drop the proceeding on his or her death by resort to Section 256, Cr. P.C. would be counter productive in many cases. If in a given case the apprehension still subsists, it would not be in the interest of justice to drop the proceeding merely because the person who was the source of information has died. The Magistrate is not powerless to bring on record any of the persons who was similarly situated as the complainant. The position may be different where Only one individual is the affected person and he or she dies Description of a party in the proceeding is for procedural convenience. The case at hand being different, the Executive Magistrate was not justified in dropping the proceeding. The order is set aside, and the application is allowed. 7. The petitioner be substituted in place of Manjana and, the proceeding be continued. It is open to the Executive Magistrate to drop the proceeding at such stage if he feels that apprehension of breach of peace or public tranquillity has vanished. The application accordingly disposed of.