ORDER

Agarwala, J. - These references arise out of proceedings under Sections 107/112 and 117, Sub-section (3), Criminal P. C.

2. It appears that there are two parties in the Sadh Community of Farrukhabad. One party i3 known as party No. l probably because it was so named in some litigation, and the other is known as party No. 2. There is a "Chauki Sadhan" at Farrukhabad where be to the parties claim to have a right of worship and to hold bhandaras, that is, religious feasts, on certain dates. There has been civil and criminal litigation between the parties. In March or April 1947, the first party wanted to hold a bhandara. Proceedings u/s 147, Criminal P. C., were initiated by the City Magistrate as he apprehended a breach of the peace. By an order dated 28th May 1947, the learned Sessions Judge declared the rights of be to the parties in the "Chauki Sadhan" to perform worship and to hold bhandaras. be to parties were dissatisfied and they filed revisions before the learned Sessions Judge which were ultimately decided by a learned Judge of this Court. Hardly had this litigation ended when a fresh trouble started.

3. On 18th August 1947 the first party was holding its bhandara and, it is alleged, that members of the second party came at the place where the bhandara was being held and wanted to interfere with the first party holding the bhandara. The police and two Magistrates appear to have reached the scene as they apprehended that there might be a breach of the peace. The Magistrates orally ordered the police to arrest a number of persons belonging to the second party. These persons were accordingly put under arrest and were subsequently released, some on the same date and some sometime later, upon their furnishing sureties for personal attendance. On the same date, that is 18th August 1947, the police made several reports against several sets of persons belonging to the second party. It was alleged by the police in its reports that while the members of the first party were holding their bhandara the second party came in large numbers and wanted forcibly to prevent the first party from doing the same and that there was a danger of the breach of peace, and that action was required to be taken under S3. 107/112, Criminal P. 0. The learned City Magistrate passed an order u/s 112, Criminal P. C, calling upon the members of the second party to show cause on 22nd August 1947, why they should not be bound down to maintain the peace for a period of three months commencing from 18th August 1947. He also took immediate action u/s 117 (3), Criminal P. C., as he apprehended an immediate breach of the peace. Upon that action some of the members of the opposite party were ordered to execute bonds to keep the peace for that period.

4. The opposite parties filed two applications in revision against be to these orders viz., the order u/s 112 and that u/s 117 (8 , Criminal P. C, before the learned Sessions Judge of Farrukhabad. The learned Sessions Judge has made these references by one single order in be to these cases and has recommended that the orders passed by the learned City Magistrate should be quashed in view of the fact that the orders were irregular and because there was no longer any danger of breach of peace as the time for which sureties were required had already elapsed and the occasion of the holding of the bhandara which gave rise to the apprehension had already passed.

5. I have heard Mr. B. S. Darbari on behalf of the first party and Mr. Vishwa Mitra on behalf of the second party at length. It appears to me that in this case there was certainly an irregularity in commencing the proceedings. When there was an apprehension of a danger of the breach of peace, the Magistrate who was on the spot should have there and then formulated an order u/s 107 read with Section 112, Criminal P. C, and served it on the party, before he proceeded to order the arrest of the second party. A Magistrate ha9 no power to order arrest with a view to his