Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In compliance of that notice, the party No. 1 filed his reply on 1.10.1999 and narrated all the contents which were earlier narrated by him in the application dated 5.8.1999 made by him to the learned Collector, Sri Ganganagar. It was further alleged by the party No. 1 in the reply that since the house in question was in a dilapidated condition, therefore, it is might fall on any day, therefore, it should be regarded as "public nuisance".
The party No. 2 (petitioner in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) filed her reply on 23.10.1999 stating inter-alia that the application under the provision of Section 133 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable as the house in question was in a very good condition and it was further alleged that the report of the Municipal Council, Sri Ganganagar, on which reliance was placed by the party No. 1, had no evidentiary value and that report was an old one and similarly, the report of the PWD had no bearing and it was given without jurisdiction. It was further averred in the reply that the intention of the party No. 1 was only to evict the party No. 2 from the house in question and for that, parly No. 1 removed the patties beneath the roof. It was further averred in the reply that earlier to the present proceedings, the proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. were initiated and in that proceedings, the learned Addl. District Magistrate (City), Sri Ganganagar through order dated 17.12.1998 directed the party No. 1 to repair the house in question. Against the said order dated 17.12.1998 passed by the learned Addl. District Magistrate (City), Sri Ganganagar, the party No. 1 preferred a revision petition being No. 5/99 and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar allowed that revision petition and set aside the order dated 17.12.1998 passed by the learned Addl. District Magistrate (City), Sri Ganganagar holding inter-alia that the dispute between he parties was not covered by the word "public nuisance" and thus, the case does not fall under Section 133 Cr.P.C. In these circumstances, it was further averred that the initiation of fresh proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. are without jurisdiction and not maintainable. It was further averred in the reply that since many matters pertaining to ownership and title of the house in question between both the parties are pending in the civil and other courts, therefore, from this point of view also, the present proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. are not maintainable.

9. Thus, the point No. 1 is decided in favour of the party No. 2, Point No. 2

10. No doubt the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar in the judgment dated 4.3.1999 passed in revision filed by the party No. 1 has clearly come to the conclusion that no case for public nuisance was made out, still something should be said on this aspect.

11. Section 133 Cr.P.C. is proceeded by the word "public nuisance". Therefore, to make out a case for initiation of proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. a public nuisance has to be established.

12. The term "public nuisance" has not been defined in the Criminal Procedure Code rather it is defined by the Indian Penal Code under Section 268, A person is guilty of a public nuisance who does any act or is guilty of an illegal omission which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to the people in general who, dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion t use any public right. A common nuisance in not excused on the ground that it causes, some convenience or advantage.

13. "Public Nuisance" shall mean a public nuisance as defined under Section 268 of IPC. "Public Nuisance" is an offence against the public as it affects the public at large, or some considerable portion of them.

14. It may be clarified here that Section 133 Cr.P.C. does not apply to private nuisance and dispute. The proceedings under Section 133 cr.P.C. are not intended to settle private dispute or disputes between different members of public.

15. The provisions of Chapter-X (133 Cr.P.C.) apply only when the obstruction or nuisance is on public way, river, channel or on any public place. An obstruction or nuisance on a private property cannot be interfered with.