A magistrate must have strong evidence of a likelihood of breach of peace before starting proceedings under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code, especially when the matter of possession is pending in the civil court.

This is a revision against tie order of the S. D. M., I. W. and Bishenpur, dated 13-8-1962, directing the petitioners to execute an interim bond for Rs. 100/- each with one surety for like sum for maintaining the peace during the pendency of the enquiry under Section 107 Criminal Procedure Code against them. The petitioners pray that the said order may be set aside and further that the proceedings against them under Section 107 Criminal Procedure Code may also be quashed as it was clearly not a case where they should have been proceeded against under the said section.

2. The first respondent herein filed a complaint before the Magistrate on 6-7-1962, stating that the land in question was purchased by him on 16-2-1955 under a registered sale-deed and that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same through one Thingbaijam Ibochouba Singh. He also said that he filed a suit T. S. No. 61 of 1961, against the petitioners i and 2, which was pending in the Subordinate Judges Court for a permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from interfering with his peaceful possession. He further said that the petitioners were attempting to disturb his possession and that a breach of the. peace was likely and he prayed for action under Section 107 Criminal Procedure Code. This complaint was sent for a Police report by the Magistrate and the Police reported on 19-7-1962 that the first respondent had purchased the land under a registered deed, that the mutation was allowed by the Settlement Officer on 19-6-1962 and that it was learnt from the witnesses that the petitioners had entered the said land and continued to cultivate the said land. He further said that the petitioners when questioned said that they have been in possession of the said land after purchasing the same in Court auction and that they have ploughed the said land. The Police Officer further said that an injunction order was issued by the learned Subordinate Judge against the petitioners restraining them from interfering with the possession of the complainant.

3. On this Police report, the Magistrate started proceedings against the petitioners under Section 107 Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioners appeared before the Magistrate and on 13-8-1962, they filed written statement. In the said written statement they pointed out that the land in question was purchased by petitioner 1 in public auction through Court in execution of the decree int. Suit No. 1 of 1957 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, against one Thinghaijam Ato Singh, the owner of the land, who was none other than the maternal uncle of the first respondent and was-taken possession of, that they have been in possession and cultivating the same and that there was no occasion for breach of the peace. They further said that the first respondent in collusion with his maternal uncle filed T. S. No. 61 of 1961 and applied for temporary injunction, that the said application was rejected on 22-2-1962, on the ground that the first petitioner was in possession of the land and that the present petition for action under Section 107 Criminal Procedure Code was filed long-after the dismissal of the injunction petition. In spite of this written statement, the Magistrate directed the petitioners to give interim bonds under Section 117(3) Criminal Procedure Code. It is against this order as well as against the proceedings started against the petitioners under Section 107 Criminal Procedure Code that this revision was filed. The petitioners applied to the Sessions Judge in revision. But the Sessions Judge summarily rejected their petition simply stating that there was no force in the petition.

4. This is again another instance of the abuse of Section 107 Criminal Procedure Code by this Magistrate. It was clearly a dispute about the possession of land and the matter was pending decision in the Civil Court. The fact that the matter was pending in the Civil Court between the parties was also brought to the notice of