Back
JITENDRA KUMAR
Shakuntala Devi Wife of Laxman Pandit – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar Through District Magistrate – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Jitendra Kumar, J.
The present petition under Section 482 Cr.PC has been preferred by the Petitioners against the impugned notice and conditional order dated 28.05.2016 issued to the Petitioners in Case bearing No.216/M/2016, pending before Ld. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Danapur, Patna, whereby proceeding under Section 133 Cr.PC has been initiated and the Petitioners have been directed to remove the obstruction/encroachment from the land in question or in the alternative, they are required to file show cause by themselves or through their counsel as to why the conditional order should not be made absolute.
2. The proceeding under Section 133 of Cr.PC has been initiated against the Petitioners on report of the officer-in-charge of Khagaul Police Station. The police have submitted the report in view of the complaint of O.P. No. 5, Narayan Pandit. As per the police report, the land in question bearing holding no. 234, Ward No. 16, Circle No.10, is situated in mohalla Bada Khagaul, Millat Colony belonging to the Petitioners. The tenant of the Petitioners is running a khatal over the land and in the middle of the land, there is accumulation of animal dung and at the western part
Proceedings under Section 133 Cr.PC require evidence of public nuisance; private disputes cannot be adjudicated under this provision.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict interpretation and application of Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing the need for eminent danger to the property....
The court emphasized that a conditional order under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. is mandatory for initiating proceedings, and failure to comply renders subsequent actions invalid.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the scope and procedure of Sec. 133 of Cr.P.C. in addressing public nuisance and the requirement for recording reasons for administrative decisions....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirement of passing a conditional order for the removal of nuisance under Section 133(1) of the CrPC and the consequences of non-c....
Removal of nuisance – If a proceedee does not perform act as warranted by conditional order or fails to appear and show cause against conditional order, he shall be liable to prosecution under Sectio....
Public nuisance established from keeping dogs in residential area, justifying action under Section 133 Cr.P.C., despite procedural irregularities.
Jurisdiction under Section 133 of the CrPC applies only to public paths; absence of a conditional order invalidates proceedings.
Constructing a wall on public land constitutes nuisance; summary proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. require no formal notice for local investigations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
