JUDGMENT : 1. Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘the Code’) the petitioners have prayed to set aside the order dated 12.08.2015 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XII, Ranchi in Cr. Appeal No. 127 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the order dated 23.02.2013 passed by learned Executive Magistrate, Ranchi in M 590 of 2012, has been affirmed. 2. Bereft of the unnecessary details, the facts which is relevant for proper adjudication of this revision, in short, is that on the basis of a written report of the petitioners a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code was initiated by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Ranchi (in short, S.D.M.) and after giving opportunity to the present opposite parties, who were second party in the proceeding and after hearing parties the learned S.D.M. Ranchi directed both the parties to execute bond of Rs.1000/- for maintaining peace by order impugned dated 23.02.2013. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petitioners preferred criminal appeal bearing no. 127 of 2013 before the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi which was heard by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XII, Ranchi and after hearing both the parties and considering the documents available on record, the appeal was dismissed and the direction given by the court below was affirmed and the petitioners were directed to execute the bond as directed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Ranchi. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel, Mr. Pratyush Kumar Jha appearing for the petitioners confined his submission only to the point that the court below has wrongly directed the petitioner no. 4 Soumen Paul @ Sonal Paul to execute the bond though there is not even iota of evidence on record to show the complicity of the said petitioner in the alleged mar- peet. Hence, only prayer of the learned counsel is to delete the name of Soumen Paul @ Sonal Paul-petitioner no. 4 from the list of the persons who have to execute the bond for maintaining peace as directed by the S.D.M., Sadar, Ranchi. Learned counsel in support of his contention referred the evidences available on record and also produced the depositions of the parties. 4. 4 from the list of the persons who have to execute the bond for maintaining peace as directed by the S.D.M., Sadar, Ranchi. Learned counsel in support of his contention referred the evidences available on record and also produced the depositions of the parties. 4. Contrary to the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel representing the State submitted that scope for interference of revisional court is very limited as direction given by the trial court was affirmed by the appellate court considering the evidence on record that there was every chance of breach of peace between the parties. 5. On perusal of the record of the case, it is apparent that before the S.D.M., Sadar, Ranchi, a petition for initiation of proceeding under Section 107 of the Code was filed by all the four petitioners including the petitioner no. 4 Soumen Paul @ Sonal Paul for which the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed to delete his name due to his non-involvement in the alleged mar-peet but he was a party to a petition filed before the learned S.D.M., Sadar, Ranchi for initiation of proceeding. There is no good ground to delete the name of petitioner no. 4 Soumen Paul @ Sonal Paul at the stage of revisional jurisdiction of this Court when both the courts have come to the conclusion that there was every chance of breach of peace between the parties. From the evidence available on record and depositions of the parties placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners for perusal, it appears that the name of petitioner no. 4 is not specifically appearing in the testimony of the witnesses but apparently, there is evidence of witnesses that the petitioner no. 1 Kartik Ghosh @ Kartik Kumar Ghosh alongwith his family members were involved in the alleged mar-peet. 6. In view of the discussion made above, I do not find any force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners to delete the name of petitioner no. 4 from the record. Accordingly, this revision application, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Application dismissed.