1. Upon on application moved by respondent No. 2 on 29-11-1976, the Administrator Municipal Council Srinagar referred the matter to the District Magistrate vide No, Gen/1-3/3094-67 dated: 59-1977 with the request for suspension of license of the Proprietor of Shiraz Cinema till the generator is removed by the management m order to avoid nuisance to the residents of the area. The District Magistrate issued notice to the petitioner and proceeded with the case when an application was filed by the petitioners herein for droping the proceedings because according to them the learned District Magistrate did not have the jurisdiction to proceed in the case any further. The respondent No 2 had submitted for taking appropriate action on the grounds that the petitioner herein were having a generator in their Cinema which was at a distance of about 6 feet from his house. The said generator was a nuisance to him and his other members of the family. His children who were school and collage going students had been facing inconvenience in their studies by the constant loud noise of the generator. The management of the Cinema had been requested to remove the generator to some other place so as to save his family from nuisance; but no heed was paid when forced him to approach the authorities,

2. The proceedings before the District Magistrate were challenged mainly on the ground that alleged nuisence was not a public nuisence within the meaning of section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which could warrant any action against the petitioners herein by the District Magistrate. The District Magisrtate after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties held that he had the jurisdiction to deal with the case irrespective of the fact whether the nuisance was public or private. He further ruled that the question of the maintainablity of the prodeedings was a question touching the merits of the case which can be decided at the conclusion of the proceedings Aggrieved by the order of the District Magistrate the present petition had been filed with the prayer for quashing those proceedings as the same are without jurisdiction.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have the record of the District Magistrate.

Mr, Handoo the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the application of respondent No. 2 filed before the Administrator Srinagar Municipal council on the basis of which the proceedings were initiated. The respondent No. 2 submitted in the said application as under:-

1. "that the applicant is residing at Khanyar. just near the Shiraz Cinema.

2. That the said cinema is having a generator at a distance of 6 feet from my house.

3. That the said generator is the greatest nuisance to me and to the members of my family.

4 That my children are college and school students and have been facing great inconvenience in their studies by the constant loud noise of the generator."

4. A perusal of the application would clearly show that the grievance made by the respondent No. 2 was personal grievance and the nuisance complained of a private one. Section 133 of the criminal Procedure Code provides for the removal of a public nuisance. The purpose and object of Section 133 Cr P, C. is not intended to fettle private disputes between two members of the public but is intended to protect the public as a whole against the alleged inconvenience. The proceedings under section 133 Cr. P. C can be resorted to in the interests of the public and can not be made a substituted for litigation in the civil Courts in order to secure settlement of private disputes which do not affect the members of the public in general. If the alleged obstruction or nuisance exists on some private property resort can not be had to the provisions of Sec. 133 Cr. P. C. Unless and until it is proved that the nuisance complained of was a public nuisance, the District Magistrate or any another magistrate contemplated by the provisions of sectio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document