The main legal point established in the judgment is that Section 133 of Cr.P.C. is intended to settle disputes related to public rights and general interest of the public at large, and it can only be used to prevent public nuisance and imminent danger to the property. Private disputes of a civil nature cannot be entertained under Section 133 of Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J.

1. By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for quashing of judgment dated 20.12.2013 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Una, Camp at Amb, in Criminal Revision No. 1/2012 RBT No. 2/2013/2012, vide which learned Court below while dismissing revision petition so filed by the present petitioner upheld the order passed by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Amb, District Una, in case No. 74/CR/07 titled State Vs. Harpal Singh instituted under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. dated 03.09.2010.

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that petitioner Kashetar Pal Singh filed an application before Gram Panchayat, Lower Bhanjal dated 08.04.2007 to the effect that respondent No. 1 Harpal Singh had blocked the flow of rainy and domestic water of the petitioner as well as other local residents near the house of the petitioner which had caused damage to the house of the petitioner. On these bases, a Kalandra was filed by the police, Police Station Amb, under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. against respondent No. 1 Harpal Singh in the Court of learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Amb, on the ground that Harpal Singh had blocked the flow of water forcibly causing danger to the house of petitioner and that on 03.07.2007 police visited the spot and associated petitioner as well as respondent No. 1 with the inquiry which revealed that the houses of petitioner, Satya Devi and Pushpa Devi, were adjacent to each other and respondent No. 1 Harpal Singh had constructed his house later on and had made Nallah for free flow of rain water underneath his house and rain water was also going through the same and Harpal thereafter had blocked the free flow of water by putting cement, concrete etc. on the drain as a result of which water was not going through the drain and was seepaging in the house of Kashetar Pal Singh endangering the house ofKashetar Pal Singh. It was on the basis of this inquiry that police submitted Kalandra before learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Amb.

3. Respondent No. 1 in his response submitted before learned Sub Divisional Magistrate stated that he had not blocked any rainy water as alleged. According to him, petitioner had constructed septic tank adjacent to the drain behind his abadi and at the back side of abadi of petitioner. As per respondent No. 1, he had not blocked/obstructed any water and in fact, police had prepared a false Kalandra against the respondent. It was also mentioned in his response that there was civil litigation going on between the parties on the same subject matter in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Court No. 1, Amb i.e. case No. 121/07 and parallel proceedings were not maintainable on the same cause in the Court of learned Sub Divisional Magistrate.

4. Learned Sub Divisional Magistrate vide order dated 03.09.2010 dismissed Kalandra by holding that there was no nuisance and further the matter in issue was not of public interest and general public was not involved in the said dispute.

5. This decision of learned Sub Divisional Magistrate was challenged by way of a revision petition which was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Una, Camp at Amb on 20.12.2013.

6. While dismissing the revision petition, it was held by learned Court below that under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. Sub Divisional Magistrate on taking such evidence as he thinks fit could remove nuisance or unlawful obstruction from any public place or from any way, river or channel which is or may be lawfully used by the public. Learned Revisional Court held that the report submitted by police did not mention that path was a public path. It further held that as per report there was dispute of drain between the parties and Executive Magistrate could not take cognizance of private disputes of the parties under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. Learned Court further held that object of Section 133 of Cr.P.C. was to enabl