Judgment N. Pandey, J. 1. This petition under sections 397 and 401 of the Code of criminal Procedure is against the order dated 20th July, 1995, in Rev. No.244 of 1993 whereby the order dated 21-5-1993, passed by the Executive magistrate, Begusarai was set aside. 2. Undisputedly, on the basis of a report of the Police dated 21-5-1992, a proceeding under S.107 of the Code of criminal Procedure (Cr. P. C.) was started between the parties. The parties appeared and filed their show cause. Thereafter, an inquiry as required under s.116 Cr. P. C. commenced with effect from 29-7-1992. Since the period of six months to conclude the inquiry as required under S.116 (6) Cr. P. C. was going to expire, a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioners for extension of the period of inquiry. The learned magistrate, after hearing the parties, by order dated 21-5-1993, extended the period of inquiry to further six months. 3. The opposite party being aggrieved by the order of the learned magistrate, filed a revision which has now been disposed of by the impugned order, setting aside the order of the magistrate, whereby he had extended the period of inquiry. 4. There cannot be any dispute that in proper cases, the learned Magistrate can extend the period of six months after assigning reasons for such extension. Therefore, the views expressed by the learned Additional Judge cannot be approved that in no case, period of inquiry can be extended. But the proceeding in question was initiated as back as on 9-6-1992, on the basis of the Police report dated 21-5-1992, in order to prevent breach of peace between the parties, prevailing at the relevant time. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of petitioners stating that apprehension of breach of peace which had arisen in the year 1992, is still continuing. But in absence of any specific instance of recent incidents regarding breach of peace or any report of the higher authorities, it would not be proper to hold that breach of peace between the parties, which had arisen in the year 1992 is still persisting. 5. It cannot be denied that steps as contemplated under Sec.107 Cr. P. C. are taken merely with a view to prevent breach of peace between the parties. 5. It cannot be denied that steps as contemplated under Sec.107 Cr. P. C. are taken merely with a view to prevent breach of peace between the parties. Therefore, there appears no justification to allow such a stale proceeding to continue with respect to breach of peace committed by the parties in the year 1992. But certainly, if me breach of peace persists and there are instances of disturbances of public tranquillity and sufficient grounds are available, the magistrate will be at liberty to start a fresh proceeding. 6. Having regard to the facts noticed above, I dispose of this petition with liberty to the parties to approach the police as well as subdivisional magistrate to start a fresh proceeding, in case there is apprehension of breach of peace. It may also be recorded that this order will not cause prejudice to the case of the parties at any stage of the litigation, if any. 7. With the aforesaid, this application is disposed of. Order Accordingly