Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. In M/s. Shiraz Cinema vs. Srinagar Municipal Corporation, reported in Crimes (HC) 2 (1988) 250, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has held that Section 133 Cr.P.C., providces for the remove of public nuisance. The purpose and object of Section 133 Cr.P.C is not intended to settle private disputes between two members of the public but is intended to protect the public as a whole against the inconvenience of public nuisance. No doubt that the provisions of Section 133 Cr.P.C., cannot be used for settlement of disputes between private parties. In the instant case, it cannot be construed that there is any attempt to settle any private dispute.

20. The Court can take judicial notice that barking and howling of dogs in a residential area would certainly cause noise pollution and further, keeping those animals in the residential area, without getting license under Section 352 of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act is also violation. On the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that the decisions cited on the side of the petitioner would not make the action taken by the 4th respondent, Sub-Divisional Magistrate illegal to remove the public nuisance under Section 133 Cr.P.C. Keeping animals detrimental to the interest of the other residents cannot be a right of any person.

21. The Court can take judicial notice that keeping even 6 or 7 dogs in a residential area will cause public nuisance on account of barking and howling of the dogs, similarly, emitting foul smell by the dogs cannot be ruled out, which would also cause public nuisance.

22. Mr.A.Ramesh, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 relying on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench in Krishna Gopal vs. State of M.P., (1986 Crl. L.J 396) submitted that the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate can be invoked under Section 133 (1) Cr.P.C., on receiving the report of the Police Officer or other information and on taking such evidence if any, as he thinks fit. It was held that on information received, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is empowered to take action in this behalf for either removal or regularising a public nuisance. The action that was initiated on the basis of a Police Report and the complaint received, could be the basis for taking action under Section 133 Cr.P.C. It has been held that merely because only one complainant has come forward to complain about the nuisance, the nuisance cannot be construed that there was no public nuisance, as contemplated under Section 133 Cr.P.C. In the instant case, there was complaints by three persons and they complained before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, in order to remove the public nuisance and further, as per the impugned order, it is made clear that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has considered the reports of the Inspector of Police, B4 Police Station, Assistant Commissioner of Police (Central) and the report of the Joint Director of Health Services and that the Commissioner, Coimbatore Corporation has also reported that no NOC was issued for rearing dogs at the residence of the petitioner.

27. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, nuisance is an inconvenience which materially interferes with the ordinary physical comfort of human existence, but it is not capable of precise definition. Section 133 attracts only public nuisance, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vasant Manga Nikumba vs. Baburao Bhikanna Naidu, reported in (1995) 4 (Supp) SCC 54. If the inconvenience or annoyance affects public at large, that has to be construed only as public nuisance. In the instant case, it has been established that barking and howling of the dogs have caused inconvenience and annoyance to the respondents 1 to 3 as well as other people residing in the locality and therefore, it is only a public nuisance. Similarly, emitting foul smell is also a public nuisance, causing inconvenience to all the people residing in the locality. As a matter of right, no one is entitled to keep dogs or other animals in a residential area, so as to create public nuisance. Considering the barking and howling of dogs, in addition to emitting foul smell, the concerned authority, empowered under Section 133 Cr.P.C., can take action to remove the nuisance.