Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, J
Sanjana Kumari – Appellant
Versus
Dharmender @ Dharam Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioners have filed the present petition against the judgment dated 18.11.2023, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. (learned Revisional Court), vide which the order dated 19.11.2016, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. (learned Trial Court) was set aside. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the complainants filed a complaint before the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., asserting that a road was constructed under MGNREGA. The respondents erected barbed wire and obstructed the road. The complainants requested the respondents to remove the obstruction, but in vain. Hence, the complaint was filed before the Court.
3. Learned Sub Divisional Magistrate sent the complaint to the Station House Officer (SHO) for investigation, who submitted a report that the respondents had erected a barbed wire and did not remove it despite persuasion of the panchayat officials.
Jurisdiction under Section 133 of the CrPC applies only to public paths; absence of a conditional order invalidates proceedings.
The court emphasized that a conditional order under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. is mandatory for initiating proceedings, and failure to comply renders subsequent actions invalid.
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....
Section 133 CrPC inapplicable to create passage on government playground absent proof of public way and hearing to owner; violates natural justice; civil suit appropriate remedy for passage rights.
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).
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the prescribed legal procedures under Section 133, Section 137, and Section 138 of the Cr.P.C. in cases involving publi....
The court upheld the dismissal of a petition regarding obstruction on a public road, finding no evidence of such a road and affirming the Additional District Magistrate's jurisdiction.
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
