Back
2022 Supreme(Gau) 517
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Sukkur Ahmed Barbhuiya S/o Late Fajil Uddin Barbhuiya – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam and Another – Respondents
Crl. Pet. No. 301 of 2022
Decided On : 26-07-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. N. Islam.
For the Respondents: Mr. K.K. Parashar, Ms. R. Choudhury.
Point of Law : Section 133 Cr.P.C. is not intended to settle the private dispute between the parties but to ensure that public is protected from the inconvenience of a public nuisance.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 133, 147, 482 – Criminal Appeal – illegally and maliciously blocked the path - Order for removal of obstruction - Abetment of assault by soldier – Conditional order for removal of nuisance – Savings of inherent powers of High court - Whether provision of Section 133 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to resolve a private dispute - Supreme Court in no uncertain terms stated that proceeding under Section 133 Cr.P.C. are not intended to settle private dispute between different members of the public, they are in fact intended to protect the public as a whole against inconvenience. (Para 7).
Findings of the Court :
Court have carefully gone through petition and documents placed on record and also ground mentioned in petition. From submissions of learned Advocates of both sides and also perusal of petition and the documents placed on record, Court find that question to be answered by this Court is whether provision of Section 133 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to resolve a private dispute - Road which is allegedly blocked by respondent No. 2 is a private road connecting land of petitioner with a public road. And admittedly, no inconvenience is caused to public by said action of respondent and as such, dispute between petitioner and respondent No. 2 is purely a private dispute and as such, provision of Section 133 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to settle aforesaid private dispute.
Result : Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
1. Heard Mr. N. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. K.K. Parashar, learned Addl. P.P. for State respondent No. 1 as well as Ms. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.
2. In this application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has put to challenge the judgment and order dated 21.02.2022, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Cachar, Silchar, in Criminal Revision Case No. 25/2022.
3. It is to be noted here that vide the impugned judgment and order, the learned Court below has allowed the Criminal Revision preferred by respondent No. 2 and set aside the order dated 22.11.2021, passed by the learned Addl. District Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar in Misc. Case No. 694/2021.
4. The factual background, leading to filing of the present petition is briefly stated as under:
“The petitioner purchased a plot of land measuring 6 katha, situated at Barakpar village from one Saleh Ahmed Laskar by executing a registered sale deed, dated 18.04.2021. Prior to that, the vendor purchased the same land by registered sale deed, dated 05.04.2010. There is a private path connected to a public path attached to the said plot of land and the said fact is mentioned in both the sale deeds. Then, after purchasing of the said land by the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 most illegally and maliciously blocked the path which is only way to ingress and egress of the petitioner’s land. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed an application before the District Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar under Section 147/133 Cr.P.C. praying for passing necessary order for removal of obstruction made by the opposite party. The learned Addl. District Magistrate then referred the matter to the Officer-in-Charge of Silchar Police Station for enquiry and report. Accordingly, a report was submitted by the police and on being satisfied, the learned Addl. District Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar passed an order on 12.11.2021 and issued notice to the opposite party and directed him to remove the obstruction from the path of the petitioner within 7 (seven) days. Thereafter, the learned Addl. District Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar passed another order, dated 27.01.2022 asking the concerned Police to remove the obstruction created by opposite party under Section 133 Cr.P.C. But, the opposite party did not comply with the order. Instead on 01.02.2022, the respondent No. 2 preferred revision petition before the Learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar and vide impugned Judgment and Order, dated 21.02.2022, the learned Court below has set aside the order passed by the learned Addl. District Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar on 12.11.2021 and 27.01.2022.”
5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition, on the ground that the impugned order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar suffers from manifest illegality. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Addl. District Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar has rightly passed the order under Section 133 Cr.P.C. directing the respondents to remove the obstruction and the learned court below has illegally set aside the same. Therefore, it is contended to set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar.
6. Ms. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that the dispute between the parties are private dispute and is of civil nature and the jurisdiction under Section 133 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to resolve a private dispute and the aggrieved party may approach the Civil Court in this regard and admittedly the property is a private property having no concern with the public and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition
7. Having heard the submission of the learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also the ground mentioned in the pe
