ORDER

Since all the three petitions arise out of the same proceedings initiated under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the order dated 14.03.2026 passed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in Criminal Revision Nos.17/2026, 19/2026 and 20/2026 affirming the order dated 16.01.2026 passed by the learned City Magistrate, Sagar in Case No.02/Criminal/Section 152 BNSS/2025, involve identical questions of fact and law and are founded upon substantially similar grounds, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being referred to from M.Cr.C. No.14969/2026.

2. The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashment of the revisional order dated 14.03.2026 as well as the order dated 16.01.2026 passed by the learned City Magistrate under Section 152 BNSS directing vacation of premises bearing House No.325/263/1 situated at Loharwali Gali, Bariyaghat, Sagar, on the ground that the structure was found to be dilapidated, dangerous and likely to cause public nuisance and danger to life. The petitioners claim to be occupants/tenants of different portions of the said premises. It is their case that the proceedings under Section 152 BNSS were initiated at the instance of Shri Digambar Jain Sagroday Teerth Trust in collusion with the Municipal Corporation with the sole object of evicting the petitioners from the premises under the guise of public safety. It has also been pleaded that this Court, while disposing of W.P. No.1223/2026, had relegated the parties to avail the revisional remedy and granted interim protection, but the revisional Court failed to appreciate the grounds raised and mechanically affirmed the order of the City Magistrate without independently examining the legality of the proceedings.

3. Learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that the impugned orders are arbitrary, illegal and have been passed in violation of Section 152 BNSS and the principles of natural justice. It was contended that the proceedings were initiated without proper notice or opportunity of hearing and that the petitioners, being lawful occupants/tenants, were sought to be evicted under the guise of proceedings for removal of public nuisance. According to the petitioners, the respondent Trust, in collusion with the Municipal Corporation, invoked Section 152 BNSS only to settle a civil dispute relating to title and tenancy, which is impermissible in law. In support of their arguments they have placed reliance upon the judgements delivered in the case of Wahid Khan Vs. State of M.P. & Others (W.P.No.42088/2025), Girja Shankar Pyasi Vs. Arunendra Pyasi & Another, (M.Cr.C.No.9362/2013), Smt. Chandrawati Devi & Others Vs. State of M.P. and Others, Rajesh Kumar Gupta Vs. State of M.P. and Others Rakesh Sahu and Another Vs. State of M.P. and Others, Smt. Injana Aaswani & Others Vs. State of M.P. and Others, judgement delivered by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ram Kishore and Others Vs. Additional Sessions Judge, Barbanki, Vasant Nikumba & Others Vs. Baburao Bhikanna Naidu, reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 54 and Suhel Khan Khudyar Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2009) 5 SCC 586.

4. It was further argued that the reports of the Structural Engineer, the Municipal Corporation, the PWD and the Tehsildar were prepared unilaterally without associating the petitioners and cannot be treated as conclusive proof that the building is dangerous. The learned City Magistrate and the Revisional Court, it was submitted, mechanically relied upon these reports without properly considering the petitioners' objections, photographs and the pendency of civil proceedings. It was therefore prayed that the impugned orders dated 16.01.2026 and 14.03.2026(of all three cases) be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 528 BNSS.