HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Om Prakash And 3 Others .....Petitioner(s)

Versus State Of U.P. And 9 Others .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mukti Nath Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Prashant Singh, Sher Bahadur Singh Court No. - 88 HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State-

respondent, and perused the entire record.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the legality and correctness of the impugned judgment and order dated 07.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court–II, Court No.24, Shahjahanpur in Criminal Revision No.199 of 2024, Om Prakash and others v. Guru Dayal and others, whereby the revisional court affirmed the order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Tilhar, District Shahjahanpur in Case No.273 of 2023, Guru Dayal and others v. Om Prakash and others, initiated under Section 133 Cr.P.C.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. were initiated by respondent nos. 3 to 9 due to long-standing village enmity. It is argued that there is no obstruction created by the petitioners on any public land and that the allegation of constructing a latrine on a public pathway is false, mala fide, and intended solely to harass the petitioners. Learned counsel further submits that the authorities failed to consider the petitioners' objections and that the inquiry report relied upon by the S.D.M. is vague, incomplete, and not based on any proper spot inspection. It is further contended that the S.D.M. proceeded in undue haste without affording adequate opportunity of hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it emerges that the proceedings were set in motion upon a complaint filed by respondent nos. 3 to 9 alleging obstruction on a public pathway caused by the latrine erected by the petitioners. Pursuant to the said complaint, the S.D.M. sought reports from the Station House Officer, the Block Development Officer, and the Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat).

5. The inquiry reports collectively indicate that several persons in the vicinity had earlier constructed latrines on the public pathway, but upon notice by the authorities, all except the petitioners removed the said constructions. The reports specifically mention that the petitioners' latrine continued to exist on the public way and was causing obstruction to the free passage of the villagers and movement of traffic. The S.D.M., relying on the said reports, recorded a categorical finding that the structure erected by the petitioners amounted to encroachment on public land and constituted a public nuisance within the meaning of Section 133 Cr.P.C.

6. The revisional court, after reappraising the entire material, upheld the order of the S.D.M., finding no irregularity or illegality in the procedure adopted or the conclusions drawn. The revisional court noted that the petitioners were afforded adequate opportunity to present their case, and the findings were based on multiple official reports.

7. This Court finds that orders passed under Section 133 Cr.P.C. are preventive in nature and intended to ensure that public nuisance is removed promptly in the interest of public convenience and safety. The jurisdiction under this provision is summary but is to be exercised upon consideration of sufficient material indicating the existence of a public nuisance.

8. In the present case, the S.D.M. based his order on consistent reports submitted by different authorities, all of whom confirmed the existence of the petitioners' structure on the public pathway. The petitioners have not brought on record any cogent material to dislodge the said findings. Their plea of village enmity, in absence of supporting evidence, cannot by itself negate the official inquiry reports. No material irregula