Indira Shah, J.

By filing this application u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.7.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge at Cachar, Silchar in Criminal Revision No. 316 of 2014 arising out of M.R. Case No. 14 of 2007 pending in the court of learned Addl. District Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar.

2. Heard Mr. A.M. Bora, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the respondent State and Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the private respondents.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of this petition are that the respondents filed an application before the District Magistrate, Cachar, contending that the scheduled private path described in their application was purchased by them vide registered sale deeds dated 17.07.1974 and 23.07.1974. As the path was narrow for their movement, they approached the land owner, namely, Amalendu Swami, to sale more land for widening of the path. Accepting the request, the original owner sold some more land to the applicants as well as the present petitioner vide sale deed executed on 22.09.1974. Accordingly, the path was registered in the name of the respondents as well as the petitioner.

4. In the year 2013, the present petitioner purchased some low lying land situated in the eastern side of the existing path for the illegal purpose of converting the said low lying land for some other purpose by earth filling. The petitioner started to run heavy vehicles including trucks and trippers through the schedule private path. The respondents also alleged that for filing up of the said low lying land it would require thousands of vehicles to ply over the schedule path fully loaded with land. The respondent no. 2 requested the present petitioner for not using the schedule path for plying of heavy vehicles which are causing health hazards to the public at large but the petitioner did not stop plying of heavy vehicles. On receipt of the said application, MR Case No. 1407 of 2015 was registered and a proceeding u/s 133 Cr.P.C. was initiated by learned District Magistrate and a conditional order directing the petitioner to stop plying of heavy vehicle was passed.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred criminal revision before the learned Sessions Judge challenging the said order and learned Sessions Judge after hearing both the parties dismissed the criminal revision preferred by the petitioner. Hence, this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that learned District Magistrate as well as learned Sessions Judge failed to take into account the fact that the dispute with regard to a private path is purely of civil nature and therefore, it cannot be entertained by a Magistrate u/s 133 Cr.P.C. The scope of Section 133 Cr.P.C. is only for removal of public nuisance and settlement of private dispute between the parties cannot be the subject matter of proceeding u/s 133 Cr.P.C. In the present case, the whole path is admittedly a private path and the present petitioner as well as the respondents have the equal rights to use the same.

7. Citing the case of Gopal Saha v. Uttam Saha reported in 2013 4 GLT 990 and Sankar Saha v. State of Tripura and Ors. reported in 2008 1 GLT 324, the learned counsel has submitted that the term "community" in clause (1) (b) of Section 133 Cr.P.C. cannot be taken to mean a resident of a particular house or 4/5 houses. A private individual cannot be allowed to use the provision of Section 133 Cr.P.C. to remove a purely private nuisance by attempting to take a short route.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the petitioner has challenged the order of District Magistrate by filing an application against the interim order. Only a conditional order was passed and notice to the petitioner was issued to show cause in terms of Section 135 Cr.P.C. The petitione