Honble SAXENA, J. – Heard. Perused the impugned order dated 30.6.1993 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tonk, whereby while issuing notices to show cause u/s. 107 read with Sec. 111 Cr.P.C.; he after going through the evidence collected by the SHO, Police Station, Kotwali Tonk and on being satisfied that there was reason to fear the commission of breach of peace and that such breach of peace could not be prevented otherwise that by the immediate arrest of the petitioners, ordered for issuing non-bailable warrants for their arrest. (2). Shri Hassan has vehemently contended that in view of the provisions of Section 113 Cr.P.C. the learned S.D.M. ought to have first issued summons requiring the presence of the petitioners to show cause and that there after on their failure to show cause he could have ordered for their arrest and as such, the learned Magistrate has committed an illegality in exercise of his jurisdiction in issuing non-bailable warrants. (3). On the other hand, the learned PP has asserted that from the report of Production Officer of Rajasthan Rajya Bunkar Sahakari Sangh Ltd., and the state- ments of various witnesses recorded by the SHO, Police Station Kotwali Tonk, there was sufficient material to show that the only way of preventing the breach of peace was to arrest the petitioners and as such the learned Magistrate has exercised his jurisdiction fairly and judiciously in accordance with the proviso to Section 113 Cr.P.C. (4). I have carefully considered the rival submissions. Proviso to Section 113 Cr.P.C. specifically lays down that, whenever it appears to the Magistrate, upon the report of the police officer, or upon other information (substance of which report or information shall be recorded by the Magistrate) that there is reason to fear the commission of breach of peace and that such breach of peace cannot be prevented otherwise than by the immediate arrest of such person, the Magistrate may at any time issue warrants for his arrest. Therefore, before making an order of immediate arrest the Magistrate must be of opinion that only way of preventing a breach of peace is to commit the person to custody. To justify an arrest under the proviso to Section 113 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate must act upon information that has been on re- cord. Therefore, before making an order of immediate arrest the Magistrate must be of opinion that only way of preventing a breach of peace is to commit the person to custody. To justify an arrest under the proviso to Section 113 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate must act upon information that has been on re- cord. When a Magistrate is satisfied about the correctness of the report of an apprehension of breach of peace, he is legally armed with the power to issue warrant of arrest instead of issuing summons u/s. 113 Cr.P.C. after passing the order u/s. 111 Cr.P.C. requiring the person concerned to show cause. (5). In the case on hand, a careful perusal of the report submitted by Laik Ah- mad, LDC/Sales Assistant of the Rajasthan Handloom House, Tonk, the report dated 25.6.93 of the Production Officer, Rajasthan Rajya Bunkar Sahakari Sangh Ltd., addressed to the S.D.M. Tonk and the statements of witnesses recorded by the SHO manifestly shows that the petitioners had in the past also ransacked the office of the Rajasthan Handloom House, Tonk, destroyed its record, broken its telephone, tables and other articles and attempted to loot the cash box lying therein. Thereafter the petitioners once again had threatened the employees of the Rajasthan Handloom House, Tonk and on 24.6.93 voluntarily caused injuries to the employees of the said Handloom House and forcibly taken away its cheque book. The witnesses in their statements recorded by the SHO have also stated like wise. In the criminal complaint also the SHO prayed for taking action against the petitioner u/s. 116(3) Cr.P.C. All these facts fully justify the action taken by the learned S.D.M. by ordering for issuance of non-bailable warrants against the petitioners under the proviso appended to Section 113 Cr.P.C. (6). Therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any vice or error of exercise of jurisdiction, illegality or material irregularity. The impugned order also does not amount to any abuse of process of the court. (7). In the result, this petition is meritless and the same is hereby dismissed. The petitioners are directed to appear before the learned S.D.M., Tonk, on 2.11.95 for further proceedings in the matter. The record of the lower court be sent back.