Back
FARJAND ALI
Gourav Juneja S/o Krishnlal Juneja – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
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 16.12.20
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.
The court affirms that Section 133 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked without established urgency for public nuisance, emphasizing adherence to procedural requirements.
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
