IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

th

ON THE 24 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 15472 of 2019 RAMSWAROOP Versus MUNNI LAL AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Pavan Kumar Vijaywargiya - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Lokendra Sharivastava Advocate for the respondents.

ORDER This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the petitioner assailing the legality and propriety of the order dated 28.03.2019 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of Third Additional Sessions Judge, Datia in Criminal Revision No. 42/2018, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 04.05.2018 passed in Case No. 09/05/133 was dismissed.

The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are that respondents No. 1 and 2 initially filed an application under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. before the competent Magistrate alleging that respondent No. 1, Munnilal, had constructed his house on Survey No. 250 situated at Village Chandni, Tehsil Bhander, and was carrying out agricultural activities therein. It was further stated that Survey No. 245 belonged jointly to the petitioner, respondent No. 3 Shriram, and their mother Dhankunwar, who has since expired. The southern boundary of Survey No. 250 was stated to be adjoining Survey No. 245. Survey No. 251 was recorded as a pond and to its south lay Survey No. 250 described as a public pathway. The allegation was that the petitioner and respondent No. 3 had encroached upon the said public pathway by placing bricks, stones and rubble over an area measuring approximately 10 x 50 feet, thereby obstructing access of respondents No. 1 and 2 to their residence and to the temple of Goddess Mata, resulting in public nuisance. A prayer was made for removal of the alleged obstruction. Upon service of notice, the petitioner filed a detailed reply on 19.02.2006 denying the averments made in the application. After appreciating the material available on record, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate rejected the application of respondents No. 1 and 2 vide order dated 01.02.2007. Against the said order, respondent No. 1 preferred a revision which was dismissed by the revisional court vide order dated 25.07.2007. Thereafter, respondents again filed an application under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. in respect of the same land and on identical grounds. The learned SDM, Bhander dismissed the said application on 07.01.2009 holding that the proceedings were not maintainable. Aggrieved thereby, respondent No. 1 preferred a revision before the Sessions Court, Datia. The learned Sessions Court vide order dated 03.01.2011 directed the court below to reconsider the matter in the light of Sections 133 to 138 of Cr.P.C. In compliance thereof, the parties were directed to appear and lead evidence. However, respondent No. 1 moved an application under Section 139 of Cr.P.C., on the basis of which a report was called for and ultimately the learned Magistrate allowed the application under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. vide order dated 04.05.2018. Being aggrieved by the order dated 04.05.2018, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 42/2018 before the revisional court, which came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 28.03.2019. Hence, the present petition has been filed invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 28.03.2019 is manifestly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the mandatory provisions of Section 133 of Cr.P.C., and therefore unsustainable in law. It is contended that the dispute between the parties dates back to the year 2002 and that respondent No. 1 had earlier filed two applications under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. which were rejected, and the revisions preferred thereagainst were also dismissed. It is further submitted that even prior to that, the father of respondent No. 1, late