Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amarnath Pandey vs Parash Singhai on 16 May, 2019
1 Mcrc 20688/19
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Mcrc 20688/19
Amarnath Pandey Vs. Parash Singhai & another
Gwalior Dt. 16/5/19
Shri Ayush Chourasia, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Upendri Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State.
Inherent powers of this Court u/S. 482 Cr.P.C. are invoked
assailing the revisional order dated 15/2/2019 in Cr.Rev.No.1/2019
passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Gohad, District Bhind
vide P/1 whereby the revision filed by petitioner has been
dismissed upholding the interlocutory order passed on 14/1/2019
by SDM, Gohad, vide P/1 taking cognizance of a complaint made
by the private respondent herein regarding existence of nuisance
u/S. 133 Cr.P.C. and passing an order restraining the petitioner herein to remove such nuisance within 7 days failing which proceedings u/S. 188 IPC shall be initiated against him.
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission and final disposal.
Learned counsel for petitioner relying upon the decision of coordinate bench of this court rendered in Mcrc No. 3903/08 (Harnarayain & others Vs. Bhagirath Jatava & another) decided on 10/7/2013 submits that petitioner in front of his gate was tying a few cows which was objected to by neighbour of petitioner followed by filing complaint with SDM, Gohad regarding existence of 2 Mcrc 20688/19 public nuisance on which cognizance was taken u/S. 133 Cr.P.C. and proceedings were initiated culminating into passing of the order impugned by the SDM vide P/1 dated 14/1/2019 declaring the act of the petitioner causing public nuisance and directing him to remove such nuisance within 7 days failing which proceedings u/S. 188 IPC shall be initiated against him.
The basic ground raised by learned counsel for petitioner in support of challenge to the impugned order is that in the case at hand nuisance in question can at best be termed as a private nuisance between petitioner and neighbour which does not cause any dispute or public nuisance as recognized u/S. 133 Cr.P.C and also that the petitioner and complainant are embroiled in civil litigation in shape of a suit filed by petitioner for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the disputed land where the nuisance is said to be created in which though the civil court has not granted any temporary injunction but the matter is pending adjudication.
After having heard learned counsel for rival parties and perused the record it appears that grievance raised by the complainant was in regard to foul smell and the nuisance being created due to large quantity of cow dung dumped near the area where the petitioner used to tie his cows in front of his gate occupying a part of public way. This led to SDM on receiving 3 Mcrc 20688/19 complaint calling for reply of SHO police station Gohad which revealed that petitioner has made temporary shed on the public way where 4-5 cows are tied next to which a trolley full of cow dung is dumped which is spreading bad odour and becoming hot-bed for spreading of epidemic and thus public nuisance is caused. After having afforded opportunity of being heard to the petitioner final order u/S. 133 Cr.P.C. was passed declaring the act of petitioner to be public nuisance with direction to remove the same within 7 days or face consequence as aforesaid.
The challenge by petitioner to the order u/S. 133 Cr.P.C. before the court of sessions did not bear any fruit and the revision was dismissed.
After having perused the record and gone through the impugned order, there is nothing on record to persuade this court to take a different view than the one taken by the SDM, Gohad and the court of sessions.
The decision relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner of the coordinate bench of this court in case of Harnarayain (supra) is of no avail since the same relates to alleged nuisance being created by opening of the door by one of the parties which did not cause any public nuisance but was a mere dispute between the rival parties and thus coordinate bench of this court held that it was a mere case of private dispute and not public nuisance. 4 Mcrc 20688/19
Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that area where the 4-5 cows are tied is a residential colony and not an agricultural field and therefore the kind of activity carried out by the petitioner which is declared to be public nuisance, endangers the health, convenience and comfort of member of general public who reside in the vicinity of the area.
In view of above, there is no ground to interfere in the orders passed by the courts-below.
The petition fails and is dismissed.
(Sheel Nagu) Judge (Bu) Digitally signed by DHANANJAYA DHANAN BUCHAKE DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF M.P. BENCH GWALIOR, ou=P. S., postalCode=474011, st=Madhya JAYA Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=d94ba0c97d32b052dc2b2953 e50aa2259fffca02f0df64f6e380887af9a 76471, BUCHAKE 2.5.4.45=03210001789E00741B6821B4 768B566B4765F459D8C46A18A92D65 787E324985807413, cn=DHANANJAYA BUCHAKE Date: 2019.05.17 14:10:09 +05'30'