IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI, J.
Gourav Juneja S/o Krishnlal Juneja – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2715 of 2015
Decided on : 20-11-2024
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 133 - Public nuisance - The court quashed the orders of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, finding that the elements of nuisance were not present in the case at hand, thus exceeding jurisdiction. (Paras 7, 8)
(B) Nuisance - Definition and scope - The court elaborated on the distinction between public and private nuisance, emphasizing that public nuisance must affect a considerable section of the community and not just individuals. (Paras 10, 12)
ORDER :
1. By way of the instant criminal misc. petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., a challenge has been made to the order dated 27.06.2015, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh Camp Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar dismissed the Criminal Revision No.64/2015 and upheld the order dated 16.12.2014 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Magistrate’) in Case No.Nil/2014, whereby the complaint filed under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. by the respondent No.4 was accepted and direction for removal of the encroachment made by petitioner and the respondent No.4 was passed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. was filed at the instance of respondent No.4 alleging therein that the petitioner runs a business of furniture and used to cut wood by a saw machine which generates significant noise and dust, thereby creating a public nuisance. Furthermore, the encroachment made by the petitioner also restricts public access to the way. Upon which, the police investigated the matter and submitted its report before the learned Magistrate, who vide order dated 16.12.2014 ordered for removal of the encroachments made by the petitioner as well as respondent No.4. Against the said order dated 16.12.2014, the petitioner preferred a revision petition, which came to be dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 27.06.2015 affirming the order of learned Magistrate. Hence, this criminal misc. petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Magistrate as well as learned Sessions Judge have not gave any finding of this effect that the saw machine, from which the petitioner used to cut wood, generates significant noise and dust, thereby creating a public nuisance. It is further submitted that in compliance of the directions issued by the learned Magistrate, the petitioner had removed the encroachments, which did not create any nuisance. Thus, the instant criminal misc. petition may kindly be allowed and orders under assail may kindly be quashed and set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision dated 22.09.2004 rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Kachrulal Bhagirath Agrawal & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No.1350/2003) reported in (2005) 9 SSC 36 and submits that Section 133 of Cr.P.C. provides for conditional order for removal of nuisance, which was elaborately discussed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the above referred case. The relevant part of that judgment is reproduced hereunder :-
The court ruled that the elements of public nuisance were not established, leading to the quashing of prior orders.
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 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....
Proceedings under Section 133 Cr.PC require evidence of public nuisance; private disputes cannot be adjudicated under this provision.
The High Court can exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to rectify jurisdictional errors, even when a second revision is barred under Section 397(3).
Public nuisance requires substantial proof of injury to the community; judicial discretion in abating nuisance is contingent upon credible evidence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.