IMPORTANT POINT
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 and consequential nuisance to the public to invoke its powers, and the limitations of the section to prevent public nuisance in emergent circumstances.

ORDER :

1. By means of this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 CrPC, a prayer has been made to quash the order dated 13.06.2007, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bharatpur in criminal revision petition No.85/2006 and order dated 14.10.2002, passed by the Additional District Magistrate-cum-Executive Magistrate, Bharatpur in case No.4/1997 titled Shyam Bihari Vs. Ajay Kumar, and to dismiss the complaint filed by non-petitioners No.2 and 3 under Section 133 CrPC.

2. Heard counsel for both parties and perused the material available on record.

3. It appears that non-petitioners filed a complaint under Section 133 CrPC before the Additional District Magistrate, Bharatpur (for short “ADM”), stating inter alia, that petitioners herein have blocked a public lane having width of 6-8 feet by raising construction of a room and affixing gate erecting two pillars and thereby have caused nuisance to public at large. The complaint was supported by affidavits of few neighbors namely Sudha Rani, Daulat Ram, Kamal Kishore and Laxman, all residents of Sahyog Nagar, Bharatpur. Learned District Magistrate, on receiving the complaint, passed a conditional order dated 27.05.1997, requiring petitioners to remove pakka construction from the public lane in exercise of its powers under Sub Section 1 of Section 133 of CrPC. On service of the conditional order upon petitioners, they filed reply to the complaint categorically denying the existence of any public lane in between houses of both parties. Petitioners clearly contended that they purchased the land, House No.05/288, situated at Sahyog Nagar, Bharatpur, from one Vijayrani through registered sale deed dated 17.07.1972 and towards western side of their houses, 20 feet wide way is available whereupon main gate of their houses open. It was contended that construction, which has been alleged by non-petitioners to be raised on the public land, is basically situated on their own land. Non-petitioners, having malevolent intentions against them and having an intention to get demolish their construction, that too with the aid of District Magistrate have filed this false complaint u/s.133 CrPC. Then learned District Magistrate proceeded to hold an inquiry and granted opportunities to adduce evidence, thereafter vide final order dated 14.10.2002, made the conditional order dated 27.05.1997, absolute and directed petitioners to remove the construction from the public lane, marked as ABCD in the map appended with the complaint, within a period of 15 days, albeit, construction shall get removed with the assistance of police.

4. It appears that petitioners challenged the final order dated 14.10.2002 by way of filing criminal revision petition and pointed out that the UIT, Bharatpur has regularized the purchased land of petitioners i.e. house No.5/288, Sahyog Nagar, Bharatpur. In the registered lease deed of petitioners’ plot, issued by the UIT, Bharatpur, the disputed lane has not been shown as a public lane. Similarly, existence of public lane is not proved by sale deeds of adjoining plots. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bharatpur while deciding the revision petition on merits vide order dated 13.06.2007, observed that in the map appended with the patta issued by the UIT, Bharatpur in respect of plot of petitioners, though, existence of public lane is not shown, but same is referred in the sale deed. Further, it was noted that petitioners did not make cross examination of witnesses, who sworn their affidavits in support of case of non-petitioners. The Revisional Court also referred about pendency of a civil suit for permanent injunction, but observed that this suit is not in respect of the disputed lane and finally affirmed the order of removal of construction passed by the District Magistrate and dismissed the revision petition vide order dated 13.06.2007. Hence, this petition.

5. Before embarking upon merits of both impugned orders, it would be noteworthy to keep in mind that on fil