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).

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 flow of water by putting stones/bricks, etc. The water flows into the Courtyard of the complainant. The respondent, Naresh Kumar, placed a big underground pipe to divert the public street water/drain water towards the house of the complainant. The complainant requested the respondents to remove the public nuisance, but in vain. Hence, it was prayed that the necessary action be taken in the matter.

3. The complaint was forwarded to the Station House Officer (SHO), Una, for conducting an inquiry. SHO submitted a report asserting that Madan Lal & Naresh Kumar, etc., had stopped the flow of water by putting bricks/stones, etc. The Members of the Gram Panchayat had also requested the respondents to remove the obstructions, but in vain.

4. Learned SDM, Una, issued notice to the respondents. The respondents appeared and filed a reply denying the contents of the complaint. It was asserted that the parties are inimical to each other. The level of the residential buildings of the respondents is much higher than the level of the drains. The water was flowing naturally, and no stones/bricks, etc., were put in the drain. The complainant himself raised the wall over the drain and blocked the flow of natural water. Therefore, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5. Learned Trial Court recorded the statements of the parties and visited the spot. A direction was issued to the respondents to remove the blockage from the drain and the underground water pipe for the smooth flow of the natural water.

6. The respondents preferred a revision against the order which was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Una (learned Revisional Court). The learned Revisional Court held that no opportunity was given to the respondents to lead the evidence. Learned SDM proceeded to the spot and straightaway passed an order directing the removal of the obstructions. It was not permissible. Hence, the matter was remanded to the learned Trial Court to record the evidence of the respondents.

7. Learned Trial Court recorded the statements of the respondents’ witnesses and held that the statements of the complainant’s witnesses, spot inspection report and spot inquiry revealed that a pucca drain was constructed by the Gram Panchayat for the flow of rainy and dirty water. Respondent, Madan Lal, placed an underground pipe to discharge the water. He blocked the drain and created a nuisance, causing danger to the residents and their abadies. Hence, he directed the respondents to remove the obstructions from the drain.

8. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the respondents filed a revision which was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Una (learned Revisional Court). Learned Revisional Court held that the respondents had blocked the flow of