JUDGMENT S.K. Kapur, J.
(1) Two proceedings under sections 107/151, Criminal Procedure Code, were started against the petitioner. They were buth initiated by a report made by one Guibachan Kaur to the police. The first report was made on 1st January, 1965, and the second on 3rd may, 1965. Proceeding arising out of the report dated 1st January, 1965, were disposed of by Shri M. L. Grover, Magistrate, Delhi, on 30th July ]966, in favor of the petitioner. The inquiry under sections 107/151, Criminal Procedure Code, in pursuance of the report dated 3rd May, 1965, is still pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Delhi. There was antoher case pending against the petitioner under sections 323/506, Indian Penal Code started upon a report to the police made by one Mohinder Singh, who is brtoher of Gurbachan Kaur, the complainant in sections 107/151, Criminal Procedure Code, proceedings. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Darya Ganj, Delhi, made a report on 8th November, 1965, alleging that petitioner Avtar Singh again created trouble in the office of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation and had consequently to be arrested on 6th November, 1965, in case F. I. R. No. 368 under sections 506/323, Indian Penal Code. This report was sent to the courts of buth Shri M. L. Grover and the Sub Divisional Magistrate and it was suggested that Avtar Singh petitioner be ordered to execute a bond under section 117(3), Criminal Procedure Code, for keeping the peace until the conclusion of the inquiries pending before buth the Magistrates under sections 107/151, Criminal Procedure Code. Shri M.L. Grover declined to take action against the petitioner under section 107(3), Criminal Procedure Code, but the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, by his order dated 3rd January, 1966, called upon Avtar Singh to execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,000.00 with one surety in the like amount for keeping the peace until the conclusion of the inquiry under sections 107/151, Criminal Procedure Code pending before him. It is nto disputed that no steps were taken by the teamed Sub Divisional Magistrate in this behalf between 8th November, 1965, the date of receipt of the report, and 3rd January, 1966, when the order was made. The petitioner challenged the order of 3rd January, 1966, in a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi which was dismised on 27th May, 1966.
(2) It is to be remembered that an order under section 117(3), Criminal Procedure Code, is nto a mere routine order. The provision is designed to meet an emergency. The facts of this case, however, show that after receipt of the report from the police no proceedings what soever were taken and ntohing was done for a period of nearly two months. This full period shows that no immediate measures could have been necessary for the maintenance of peace on the date of the order. Had any such measures been necessary, more speddier action would have been taken in these circumstances. I am satisfied that there was no emergency for meeting which the learned Magistrate passed the order on 3rd January. 1966. It is nto disputed that the only material before him, on which he acted, was the police report dated 8th November 1965. No toher material has been relied upon by the learned magistrate in the impugned order. It is difficult to accept that on the basis of the police report made on 8th November, 1965 alone the order could have been justifiably made in January, 1966. It must beremembered that even such like orders seriously jeopardise and prejudice the freedom of members of free society and, therefore-utmost care and caution should be applied before placing any restriction under such like emergency provisions. In these circumstances, I would allow the revision petition and set aside the order of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 3rd January, 1966.
(3) It will, however, be open to the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate to pass fresh orders if he may consider necessary having regard to the materials that may be existing or be brought before him.