Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
Madan Lal – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J
The petitioners have filed the present petition against the order dated 11.03.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Una, District-Una (learned Revisional Court) vide which the revision filed by the petitioners (respondents before the learned Trial Court) against the order dated 19.03.2018, passed by learned SDM, Una (H.P.) (learned Trial Court) in proceedings under Section 133 of Criminal Procedure Code (“in short Cr.P.C”) was dismissed. (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 Ram Lal (complainant) filed a complaint under Section 133 Cr.P.C. for removing the public nuisance, i.e. the blockage of a public street. It was asserted that the complainant and the respondents are permanent residents of the village Abada Barana. The complainant has his residential abadi in village adjoining the public street. The Gram Panchayat constructed a pucca street and pucca drain/Nali to discharge the dirty and rainy water of the residents of the locality. The respondent, Madan Lal, blocked the fl
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 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....
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 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.
Jurisdiction under Section 133 of the CrPC applies only to public paths; absence of a conditional order invalidates proceedings.
Proceedings under Section 133 Cr.PC require evidence of public nuisance; private disputes cannot be adjudicated under this provision.
The court affirms that Section 133 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked without established urgency for public nuisance, emphasizing adherence to procedural requirements.
The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 does not allow it to act as an appellate court; it corrects errors only when a grave injustice occurs due to procedural violations.
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
