JUDGMENT : S.C. Datta, J. - The petitioner challenges the order of learned Executive Magistrate, Parlakhemundi, directing him to execute bond for a sum of Rs. 7,000/- with one surety for the like amount in a proceeding u/s 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that the Magistrate was not competent to direct him to execute a bond before the commencement of enquiry. 2. It appears that the proceeding u/s 107, Cr.P.C, was started on the basis of a report by the Officer-in-charge, Garabandha Police-Station. In the report the Officer-in-charge felt that there was some ill-feeling between the 1st party members and second party members and as such, there was apprehension of breach of peace and blood-shed in the locality. Consequently, the Police prayed to the Court to direct the 2nd party members to execute bond u/s 116(3), Cr. P.C, to maintain peace and good-behaviour in the locality. On the basis of report of the Police, the Magistrate drew up a proceeding u/s 107, Cr. P.C, and asked the 2nd party members by his order dated 7.8.1996 to show-cause why they should not be asked to execute a bond of Rs. 7,000/- each with the surety of the like amount for maintaining peace in the locality for a period of one year. This order of the learned Magistrate is the subject matter of challenging here. 3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Magistrate was not competent to direct the present petitioner and others to execute an interim bond before the inquiry has commenced. According to him, inquiry does not commence as soon as the delinquent appears and the notice u/s 112, Cr. P.C. is read over to him. In support of his contention, he has referred to a Full Bench decision reported in ILR (1980) Cut. 51 (Sona Khan and Ors. v. State). The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the said Full Bench decision has been followed subsequently by the Single Judge of this Court in a case reported in (1993) 6 OCR 166 (Raghunath Mekap and Ors. v. Gopinath Patra and Ors.). In both the decisions, it has been held that an interim bond can be called for only after the commencement of the enquiry and before its completion. Without commencement of enquiry, an interim bond cannot be made. v. Gopinath Patra and Ors.). In both the decisions, it has been held that an interim bond can be called for only after the commencement of the enquiry and before its completion. Without commencement of enquiry, an interim bond cannot be made. It was further held that inquiry does not commence as soon as the delinquent appears and the notice u/s 112 is read over to him. It was also observed that bare allegation cannot form the foundation of order for a bond. The allegations have to be decided. In view of the decisions of this Court, it appears clear that the learned Magistrate was not justified in asking the present petitioner to execute a bond vide his order dated 7.8.1996. 4. It appears that the impugned order was passed on 7.8.1996 on the basis of a report of a Police. The Police apprehended breach of peace in the locality because of factionalism between two groups of parties. About two years have passed since the Police expressed apprehension about breach of peace. No doubt, the further proceedings of the case before the learned Executive Magistrate remained stayed by virtue of the order of this Court. It is not known whether the same situation still continues in the locality. The healing hands of time might have been able to bring amity in the meantime between the two groups and a cordial and inviting atmosphere of good will and friendship might have prevailed in the village. To allow the proceeding to continue after lapse of about two years may again re-generate a bad feeling and retrograde the situation and might give scope to the parties to take themselves to further violence with renewed vigour for a fresh clash. 5. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I think it would be an abuse of process of law and it would not be conducive in the interest of justice to allow the proceeding to continue. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the entire proceeding is quashed. Final Result : Allowed