# Prem Narayan Tiwari & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 1029
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-11
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 11082 of 2023
- **Bench:** Saurabh Lavania
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prem-narayan-tiwari-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-51521
- **Pages:** 16

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 133, 133(1), 137, 138 &
482 - Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. -
challenging the orders passed by the SubDivisional Magistrate and the Additional District
and
Sessions
Judge,
respectively,
under
Sections
133
and
138
Cr.P.C.,
alleging
1030 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
procedural irregularities and jurisdictional errors
- complaint case - dispute arose from a
complaint regarding obstruction of a public way
- spot inspection - a conditional order -
Revision
-
impugned
order
-
applicants
contended that the Magistrate failed to follow
the mandatory procedure under Section 138
Cr.P.C., including giving notice under Section
137
and
allowing
evidence,
and
relied
improperly on a Lekhpal's report without formal
direction or legal examination - opponents
argued that the path in question was not a
public way and that the matter was a private
dispute, making the use of Section 133 Cr.P.C.
inappropriate - Despite these objections, the
revisional court upheld the Magistrate's order -
instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing
both orders - court finds that the applicants had
admitted the existence of a public way, thereby
negating the need for an enquiry under Section
137 Cr.P.C., and the Magistrate's spot inspection
confirmed obstruction, and the applicants failed
to rebut the factual recitals in the impugned
order, which was affirmed by the revisional
court - held - proceedings under Section 133
Cr.P.C. are summary in nature and meant to
address public nuisances, not private disputes -
citing precedents, the Court emphasized that
judicial observations are presumed correct
unless properly challenged and found no
procedural or jurisdictional error warranting
interference
-
consequently,
the
instant
application has no force, accordingly, application
is dismissed. (Para - 18, 19, 22)

Application Dismissed. (E-11)

List of referred Cases: -

## Text

_Characters 0–39,895 of 49,377. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39895 for what follows._

3 All. Prem Narayan Tiwari & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1029
public order. Vile and abhorrent acts of
gangsterism do evoke collective societal
anger and anguish. While the war against
gangsterism must be waged by the State
with unwavering resolve but a civil
democratic society can ill afford sacrificing
the procedural safeguards provided under
the law, and which is an integrated facet of
the due process of law, at the altar of
perceived peril to public order.

"The Siren Song that the 'end
justifies the means', and that the procedural
safeguards
are
subservient
to
the
overwhelming need to ensure that the
accused is prosecuted and punished, must
be muzzled by voice of Rule of Law."

26. For all the reasons recorded above,
the court is of the view that at the stage of
preparing and approving the gang-chart on
the basis of materials placed, the competent
Authorities
should
have
satisfied
themselves that there is a legal basis and
justifiction for taking and persuing action
against the accused under the Act of 1986.
At the stage of approval of the gang-chart,
the approving Authority has to be satisfied
that a case for action under the Act of 1986
is made out and that satisfaction should be
reflected from the gang chart and other
records. But in this case, the competent
authorities, unhesitatingly just paid lip
service to the legislative mandate and
unfortunately had undertaken the whole
exercise of preparation and approval of the
gang chart as a ritualistic formality without
due application of mind. Thus, the
initiation and continuation of the entire
criminal proceedings is persecution and
harassment of the accused, amounting to be
sheer abuse of process of court and in order
to otherwise ensure the ends of justice is
liable to be quashed.

27. In such view of the matter, the
entire criminal proceedings emanating from
charge-sheet
dated
29.06.2021
and
cognizance order dated 31.08.2021 in case
No.618 of 2021 in relation to Case Crime
No.286 of 2020, under Section 2/3 of
Gangsters
and
Anti-Social
Activities
(Prevention Act, 1986, Police StationNawabad, District-Jhansi, which is pending
before the Special Judge (Gangster Act),
Court No.3, Jhansi against the applicantSanjay Verma is, hereby, quashed.

28. The Application is, accordingly,
allowed.

29. A copy of this order be certified to
the lower court forthwith.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1029
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 11082 of 2023

Prem Narayan Tiwari & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Purnendu Chakravarty, Abhishek Awasthi,
Pranjal Jain

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Rakesh Chandra Tewari

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 133, 133(1), 137, 138 &
482 - Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. -
challenging the orders passed by the SubDivisional Magistrate and the Additional District
and
Sessions
Judge,
respectively,
under
Sections
133
and
138
Cr.P.C.,
alleging
1030 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
procedural irregularities and jurisdictional errors
- complaint case - dispute arose from a
complaint regarding obstruction of a public way
- spot inspection - a conditional order -
Revision
-
impugned
order
-
applicants
contended that the Magistrate failed to follow
the mandatory procedure under Section 138
Cr.P.C., including giving notice under Section
137
and
allowing
evidence,
and
relied
improperly on a Lekhpal's report without formal
direction or legal examination - opponents
argued that the path in question was not a
public way and that the matter was a private
dispute, making the use of Section 133 Cr.P.C.
inappropriate - Despite these objections, the
revisional court upheld the Magistrate's order -
instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing
both orders - court finds that the applicants had
admitted the existence of a public way, thereby
negating the need for an enquiry under Section
137 Cr.P.C., and the Magistrate's spot inspection
confirmed obstruction, and the applicants failed
to rebut the factual recitals in the impugned
order, which was affirmed by the revisional
court - held - proceedings under Section 133
Cr.P.C. are summary in nature and meant to
address public nuisances, not private disputes -
citing precedents, the Court emphasized that
judicial observations are presumed correct
unless properly challenged and found no
procedural or jurisdictional error warranting
interference
-
consequently,
the
instant
application has no force, accordingly, application
is dismissed. (Para - 18, 19, 22)

Application Dismissed. (E-11)

List of referred Cases: -

1. Bhagwati Prasad Vs Delhi St. Mineral
Development Corp., (1990) 1 SCC 361,

2. St. of Maharashtra Vs Admane Anita Moti,
(1994) 6 SCC 109,

3. Md. Basar Ali Molla Vs St. of W.B., 2006 SCC
OnLine Cal 444,

4. Wali Uddin Vs St. of U.P., 1988 (12) ACR 1,

5. Raghubar Dutt Vs Suresh Chandra, 1987 ACR
566,
6. Ramvriksha Vs St. of U.P - 482 petition
No.956 of 2002 - decided vide order dated
03.03.2017,

7. Shri Thaneswar Bora Vs Shri Kumud
Sharmah, 1986(2) Gauhati Law Reports 161,

8. Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale Vs
Gopal Vinayak Gosavi, 1959 SCC OnLine SC 54 :
(1960) 1 SCR 773 : AIR 1960 SC 100,

9. Arun Kumar & anr.Vs St. of U.P. & ors.-
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 40888 of 2012
decided on order dated 03.12.2012.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant, learned AGA for the State of
U.P. and perused the record.

2. By means of the instant application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants
have assailed the order dated 07.05.2022
passed
by
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate,
Dalmau, Raebareli (hereinafter referred to
as "Magistrate") in exercise of power under
Section 138 of Cr.P.C. in Case No. 745 of
2022,
Computerized
Case
No.
T202210580500745, under Section 133 of
Cr.P.C. as also the order dated 05.09.2023
passed by Additional District and Sessions
Judge, IV, Raebareli (hereinafter referred to
as "revisional court") in Criminal Revision
No. 129 of 2022 (Prem Narayan Tiwari
another vs. Dharmendra Kumar Shukla &
another).

3. Brief facts of the case are to the
effect that an application under Section 133
Cr.P.C. was preferred by one Dharmendra
Kumar Shukla, which was registered as
Case No. 745 of 2022, in which, the
Magistrate concerned issued notice to the
opposite parties and in response to the
same, applicants herein namely Prem
Narayan Tiwari and Manoj Kumar Tiwari
3 All. Prem Narayan Tiwari & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1031
put in appearance and filed their response
on 28.04.2022. The response filed by the
applicants are as under:-

"िारा 1:- यह कक श्रीमान उप
तनरीक्षक र्थाना गदागिंज द्िारा दी गई
ररपोटग हद० 21-3-2022 िेिुतनयाद तर्था विधि
व्यिस्र्था के विरुद्ि होने के कारण तनरस्त
होने योग्य है।

िारा 2:- यह कक र्थाना गदागिंज के
द्िारा ककसी प्रकार का कोई मौके पर
मुआइना नहीिं ककया गया है प्रर्थम पक्ष के
दिाििश फजी हैरान ि परेशान करने की
तनयत से फजी ररपोटग हदखाकर िाद दायर
कर हदया है जो गलत है, तनरस्त होने योग्य
है।

िारा 3:- यह कक प्रर्थम पक्ष
िमेन्द्र कुमार के वपता स्ि० श्यामसुन्दर
शुक्ला से मुझ द्वितीय पक्ष प्रेम नरायन
ततिारी से न्यायालय ससविल जज के यहााँ
िाद सन 1997 से चल रहा र्था जजसमें हद०
15-2-2020 को आदेश मुझ द्वितीय पक्ष के
हक में हो गया है इसी रिंजजश को लेकर
यह दूसरा िाद चलाया गया है।

िारा 4:- यहकक प्रर्थम पक्ष के
वपता द्िारा िाउन्री िनिाई जा रही र्था
जजसमें वििाद होने पर प्रर्थम पक्ष के वपता
स्ि० श्यामसुन्दर द्िारा 17 कफट का रास्ता
छोड़ा गया र्था सुलहनामा की छायाप्रतत
सिंलग्न कर रहे हैं।

िारा 5- यह कक मौके पर जो
रास्ता है उसमें कोई अिरोि द्वितीय पक्ष
द्िारा नहीिं ककया गया है अतः रास्ता नाली
है जजसको मौके पर देखा जा सकता है।

िारा 6:- यह कक िरसात के
कारण गसलयारा ऊिंचा नीचा हो जाता है इस
सलए रास्ते में गड्ढों का िरािर करिाया है
द्वितीय पक्ष कोई अिरोि रास्ते में नहीिं
ककया गया है चूिंकक द्वितीय पक्ष विकलािंग
है इससलए गड्ढा होने से उसे हदक्कत होती
है।

िारा 7:- यह कक प्रर्थम पक्ष द्िारा
सुलहनामा होने के िािजूद िी रास्ते के
िगल में ईंटा धगट्टी लगाकर रास्ता सकरा
ककया गया है िह स्ियिं ही दोषी है।

िारा 8-यह कक प्रर्थम पक्ष ने
व्यजक्तगत रूप से द्वितीय पक्ष गलत
दोषारोपण ककया है जो कतई माफी योग्य
नहीिं है।

िारा 9:-यह कक द्वितीय पक्ष
तनदोष है र्थाना गदागिंज की ररपोटग गलततथ्यों पर आिाररत है द्वितीय पक्ष ने कोई
अिरोि नहीिं ककया है।

अतः श्रीमान् जी से प्रार्थगना है कक
श्रीमान जी स्ियिं मौका मुआइना करके िाद
समाप्त करने तर्था प्रर्थम पक्ष के विरुद्ि
विधिक कायगिाही करने की कृपा करें।"

4. From the above quoted portion of
the response dated 28.04.2022 filed by the
applicants, it is apparent that admittedly the
disputed pertains to 'public way' and that
the applicants prayed for spot inspection by
the concerned Magistrate.
1032 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. From the undisputed orders
particularly the orders passed by the
Magistrate concerned on 28.04.2022 and
30.04.2022, it appears that Magistrate
concerned visited the spot, however, from
the record, it appears that the spot
memo/inspection report was not prepared
on 30.04.2022.

6. It also appears from the record that
a report dated 02.05.2022 was submitted by
the Lekhpal concerned and the case was
fixed for the arguments on 02.05.2022 and
thereafter
again
on
04.05.2022
and
thereafter the matter was heard on
05.05.2022 and final order was pronounced
on 07.05.2022, impugned herein. The
relevant portion of the impugned order
dated 07.05.2022 reads as under:-

"उपरोक्त पररप्रेक्ष्य में क्षेत्रीय
लेखपाल द्िारा प्रकरण में आख्या हदनािंक
02.05.2022 प्रेवषत की गयी है, जजसमें
उजललखखत ककया गया है कक ग्राम िरारा
िुजुगग आिादी के अन्तगगत िमेन्द्र शुक्ल का
मकान जस्र्थत है। उक्त मकान के सहन की
सीि में सम्पकग मागग, आगे िने हुए
आर०सी०सी० सड़क तक जाता है। प्रार्थी के
मकान
के
उिर-पजश्चम
में
प्रततपक्षी
प्रेमनरायन ततिारी पुत्र चन्द्रदेि द्िारा अपने
मकान के सहन के सामने िने हुए सम्पकग
मागग में समट्टी डालकर ऊाँचा कर हदया गया
है जजससे प्रार्थी िमेन्द्र शुक्ल द्िारा आपवि
प्रस्तुत की गयी है। प्रार्थी का कहना है कक
उसके सीि में जो आगे आर०सी०सी० मागग
िना हुआ है िह नीचा है िहााँ तक पहुिंचने
के
सलए
प्रार्थी
द्िारा
पूिग
से
ही
समतलीकरण करते हुए समट्टी डाली गयी
र्थी। अि िहााँ तक पहुिंचने में सम्पकग मागग
ऊाँचा नीचा हो रहा है जजससे चार पहहया
िाहन आहद तनकलने में िविष्य में हदक्कत
हो सकती है। इस प्रकार स्र्थलीय तनरीक्षण
में विहदत होता है कक प्रततपक्षी द्िारा रस्ते
में धगट्टी डालकर ऊाँचा करना कोई
औधचत्यपूणग नहीिं है। र्थानाध्यक्ष गदागिंज
द्िारा िी अपनी आख्या में प्रश्नगत रास्ते
को समट्टी डालकर अिरोि उत्पन्न करने
का उललेख ककये जाने सिंििंिी ररपोटग प्रेवषत
की गयी है, जजसके िम में 113(1) द०प्र०सिं०
की नोहटस तनगगत की गयी है। मौके का
मेरे द्िारा िी तनरीक्षण ककया गया।
तनरीक्षण में उपरोक्त सम्पकग मागग में
समट्टी डालकर काफी ऊाँचा कर हदया गया
है, जजससे िाहनों के आिागमन में िािा
उत्पन्न हो गयी है।

पत्रािली पर उपलब्ि आख्याओिं
एििं असिलेखीय साक्ष्यों का अिलोकन एििं
परीशीलन
ककया
गया।
पत्रािली
के
अिलोकन से स्पष्ट होता है कक द्वितीय
पक्ष प्रेमनरायन ततिारी द्िारा प्रश्नगत
रास्ते में समट्टी डाल कर अिरोि उत्पन्न
ककया गया है एििं सािगजतनक रास्ते में
अिरोि से सािगजतनक उपताप का स्िरूप
हो गया है। अतः उक्त अिरोि को हटाया
जाना विधिक दृजष्टकोण से सिगर्था उधचत
एििं न्यायसिंगत है। एतद्द्िारा तनम्नसलखखत
आदेश पाररत ककये जाते हैं।
3 All. Prem Narayan Tiwari & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1033
आदेश

श्री प्रेमनरायन ततिारी आहद के
विरूद्ि दिंण्ड प्रककया सिंहहता की िारा
133(1) के अन्तगगत पाररत आदेश हदनािंक
08.04.2022 को अजन्तम ककया जाता है
और विपक्षी श्री प्रेमनरायण ततिारी आहद
को तनदेसशत ककया जाता है कक उपरोक्त
रास्ते में अनाधिकृत रूप से समट्टी डालकर
ककये गये अिरोि को हटा दें। ऐसा न करने
पर िे िारा 188 िारतीय दण्ड सिंहहता के
अन्तगगत दण्डनीय अपराि के सलए दोषी
होंगे। इस आदेश की प्रततसलवप र्थानाध्यक्ष
गदागिंज जनपद रायिरेली को इस तनदेश के
सार्थ
प्रेवषत
की
जाय
कक
हदनािंक
14.05.2022 तक विपक्षी द्िारा इस आदेश
का अनुपालन न ककये जाने की दशा में
उक्त सािगजतनक अपदूषण को हटिाकर
अनुपालन आख्या तर्था अपदूषण हटाने में
हुए व्यय के वििरण के सार्थ इस न्यायालय
में हदनािंक 18.05.2022 को प्रस्तुत करें।"

7. A perusal of impugned order dated
07.05.2022 indicates that the same is based
upon
the
report
of
Lekhpal
dated
02.05.2022
as
also
the
actual
position/aspect of the place in dispute
observed by the Magistrate concerned
himself while making inspection and the
Magistrate after taking note of the same
observed
that
the
applicants
have
obstructed the 'public way' and thereafter,
passed the order dated 07.05.2022 directing
the applicants to remove the obstructions.

8. The fact that the Magistrate
concerned visited the spot has not been
refuted by the applicants.

9. Being aggrieved by the order dated
07.05.2022, the applicants preferred the
Criminal Revision No. 129 of 2022. A
perusal of memo of revision indicates that
the order dated 07.05.2022 was assailed
before the District and Sessions Judge,
Raebareli on the following grounds:-

"(a) That the impugned order
dated 07-05-2022 passed by the learned
lower court being against the law and facts
and not sustainable in the eye of law and
liable to be quashed.

(b)
That
after
passing
the
conditional order dated 08-04-2022 under
section 133(1) Cr.P.C. the learned lower
court not adopted the proceeding under
section 138 Cr.P.C. and passed the
impugned order without adopting the
procedure under section 138 Cr.P.C. hence
the impugned order is bad in law.

(c)
That
after
passing
the
conditional order and after filing the
objection by the revisionists neither the
date for taking evidence under section 138
Cr.P.C. was fixed before the learned lower
court nor any opportunity of evidence was
given by the learned lower court to the
parties concerned, violating the procedure
laid down under section 138 Cr.P.C. in
arbitrary manner. Hence the impugned
order dated 07-05-2022 is not sustainable
in the eye of law and liable to be quashed.

(d) That needless to say here that
under section 133(1) Cr.P.C., after passing
the
conditional
order
section
133(1)
Cr.P.C., the further procedure under section
138 Cr.P.C. must be followed by the court
concerned before passing any final order
but in this case the learned lower court was
very much hurried to pass the final order in
favour of respondent number 1 and the
learned lower court passed the impugned
order
without
followed
the
law
of
procedure under section 138 Cr.P.C. hence
1034 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
impugned order is not sustainable in the
eye of law as passed and liable to be
quashed.

(e) That the impugned order has
been passed by the learned lower court on
the basis of Lekhpal report summoned after
passing the conditional order though it is
prejudice and one sided, inspite of this fact,
it do not disclose any encroachment on the
spot, but the report above have not been
examined under the law, which would not
be taken as evidence by the learned lower
court, hence the learned lower court has
committed manifest error by passing the
impugned order on basis of irreliable in
evidence inexamined the reports above,
hence the impugned order is bad in law.

(f) That the learned lower court
neither
perused
nor
considered
the
objections and arguments adduced by
revisionists, hence impugned order is bad
in law.

(g) That by passing the impugned
order
the
learned
lower
court
has
committed the jurisdictional error and
material irregularity.

(h) That the learned lower court
has failed to exercise its jurisdiction so
vested in it under the law by passing the
impugned order."

10. The revision filed by the
applicants was dismissed by the revisional
court on 05.09.2023 with the following
observations:-

"उपरोक्त प्राििानों के पररशीलन
से यह स्पष्ट है कक यहद िारा 133
सी०आर०पी०सी०
के
अन्तगगत
कोई
प्रार्थगनापत्र प्रस्तुत ककया जाता है, तो
मजजस्रेट ऐसे साक्ष्य लेने पर जैसा िह
ठीक समझे ऐसी िािा या न्यूसेंस पैदा
करने िाले व्यजक्त से यह अपेक्षा करते हुए
कक सशतग आदेश दे सकता है कक िह
तनयत समय के िीतर ऐसी िािा या
न्यूसेंस को हटा दे अर्थिा तनयत ततधर्थ पर
उपजस्र्थत होकर कारण दसशगत करें कक उस
आदेश को अिंततम क्यों न कर हदया जाये।
िारा 135 दिं०प्र०स० ऐसे सशक्त आदेश के
सम्िन्ि में नोहटस जारी करने या तनयत
ततधर्थ को मजजस्रेट के समक्ष उपजस्र्थत
होकर कारण दसशगत करने से सम्िजन्ित है।
यहद ऐसा व्यजक्त मजजस्रेट के समक्ष
उपजस्र्थत होता है और िह प्रश्नगत स्र्थान
के सम्िन्ि में लोकाधिकार के अजस्तत्ि से
इिंकार करता है, तो मजजस्रेट उसकी जािंच
करेगा। ऐसी जािंच में यहद मजजस्रेट को
कोई विश्िसनीय साक्ष्य समलता है तो िह
कायगिाही को रोक देगा, परन्तु यहद कोई
साक्ष्य नहीिं समलता है तो मजजस्रेट के सलए
यह आिश्यक है कक िारा 138 के अनुसार
मामले में उसप्रकार साक्ष्य ले जैसे सम्मन
मामले में सलया जाता है। िारा 139
मजजस्रेट को िारा 137 ि 138 के अिीन
जािंच के प्रयोजनों के सलए स्र्थानीय
अन्िेषण के सलए तनदेसशत करने एििं ककसी
विशेषज्ञ को तलि करने की शजक्त प्रदान
करती है।

प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में प्रार्थी िमेन्द्र
कुमार शुक्ला के प्रार्थगनापत्र एििं र्थानाध्यक्ष
गदागिंज जनपद रायिरेली की ररपोटग के
आिार पर उप-जजला मजजस्रेट, डलमऊ,
जनपद रायिरेली द्िारा तनगरानीकताग प्रेम
3 All. Prem Narayan Tiwari & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1035
नरायन ततिारी एििं मनोज कुमार ततिारी के
विरूद्ि िारा 133 की उपिारा (1) के
अन्तगगत सशक्त आदेश पाररत ककया गया
तर्था उन्हें सािगजतनक रास्ते में ककये गये
अिरोि को तुरन्त हटाने या हदनािंक
16.04.2022 को उस न्यायालय में स्ियिं
अर्थिा अधििक्ता के माध्यम से उपजस्र्थत
होकर कारण दसशगत करने हेतु आदेसशत
ककया
गया।
हदनािंक
28.04.2022
को
तनगरानीकतागण प्रेम नरायन ततिारी एििं
मनोज कुमार ततिारी द्िारा उपरोक्त िाद
में ियान तहरीरी प्रस्तुत की गयी एििं यह
कर्थन ककया गया कक प्रर्थम पक्ष िमेन्द्र
कुमार के वपता से द्वितीय पक्ष से ससविल
जज के यहािं िाद चल रहा है जजसमें
हदनािंक 15.02.2020 को द्वितीय पक्ष के
हक में आदेश हो गया। प्रर्थम पक्ष के वपता
द्िारा िाउण्री िनिायी जा रही र्थी जजसमें
वििाद होने पर प्रर्थम पक्ष के वपता द्िारा
17 कफट का रास्ता छोड़ा गया र्था मौके पर
जो रास्ता है उसमें कोई अिरोि द्वितीय
पक्ष द्िारा नहीिं ककया गया है। आम रास्ता
खाली है। जजसको मौके पर देखा जा सकता
है। िरसात के कारण गसलयारा ऊिंचा-नीचा
हो जाता है इससलए रास्ते में गड्ढ़ों को
िरािर करिाया है। विपक्षी/तनगरानीकतागण
द्िारा प्रस्तुत ियान तहरीरी उपरोक्त के
अिलोकन से यह स्पष्ट होता है कक इनके
द्िारा वििाहदत िूसम का आम रास्ता होने
के तथ्य से इिंकार नहीिं ककया गया र्था तर्था
मात्र यह कर्थन ककया गया र्था कक आम
रास्ता खाली है एििं िरसात के कारण िूसम
को ऊिंचा-नीचा हो जाने के कारण गड्डों को
िरािर
करिाया
गया
है।
विपक्षी/तनगरानीकतागण द्िारा अपने ियान
तहरीरी में मजजस्रेट से स्ियिं मौका
मुआइना करके िाद समाप्त करने का िी
कर्थन ककया गया र्था। विद्िान मजजस्रेट
द्िारा हदनािंक 20.04.2022 को यह आदेश
ककया गया कक स्र्थलीय तनरीक्षण हेतु
उियपक्ष हदनािंक 30.04.2022 को दो िजे
अपरान्ह उपजस्र्थत रहे। हदनािंक 30.04.2022
को उियपक्ष की उपजस्र्थतत में स्र्थलीय
तनरीक्षण ककया गया। मामले में क्षेत्रीय
लेखपाल की आख्या िी प्रस्तुत की गयी है,
जो पत्रािली पर सिंलग्न है। लेखपाल की
आख्या तनम्नित हैः-

"ग्राम िरारा िुजुगग आिादी के
अन्तगगत प्रार्थी िमगन्द्र शुक्ला का माकान
जस्र्थत पाया गया, उक्त माकान के सहन की
सीिा में सम्पकग मागग, आगे िने हुए
आर०सी०सी० सड़क तक जाता है। प्रार्थी के
माकान के उिर पजश्चम में प्रततपक्षी प्रेम
नरायन ततिारी पुत्र चन्द्रदेि द्िारा अपने
मकान के सहन के सामने िने हुए सम्पकग
मागग में समट्टी डालकर ऊिंचा कर हदया गया
है जजससे प्रार्थी िमेन्द्र शुक्ला द्िारा आपवि
प्रस्तुत की गयी है। प्रार्थी का कहना है कक
उसके सीि में जो आगे आर०सी०सी० मागग
िना हुआ है िह नीचा है िहािं तक पहुिंचने
के
सलए
प्रार्थी
द्िारा
पूिग
से
ही
समतलीकरण करते हुए समट्टी डाली गयी
1036 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
र्थी। अि िहािं तक पहुिंचने में सम्पकग मागग
ऊिंचा-नीचा हो रहा है। जजससे चार पहहया
िाहन आहद तनकलने में िविष्य में हदक्कत
हो सकती है। इस प्रकार स्र्थलीय तनरीक्षण
से विहदत होता है कक प्रततपक्षी द्िारा रास्ते
में समट्टी डालकर ऊिंचा करना कोई
औधचत्यपूणग कायग नहीिं है।"

विद्िान मजजस्रेट द्िारा प्रार्थी
िमगन्द्र कुमार शुक्ला प्रर्थम पक्ष के
प्रार्थगनापत्र तर्था र्थानाध्यक्ष गदागिंज की
ररपोटग के आिार पर प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में
विपक्षी को सशतग आदेश जारी कर कारण
िताने हेतु तनदेसशत ककया गया र्था, जजसमे
अपनी
ियान
तहरीरी
में
एििं
विपक्षी/तनगरानीकतागण ने िादग्रस्त िूसम
को आम रास्ता होना स्िीकार ककया र्था।
ऐसी दशा में यह प्रश्न वििाहदत नहीिं रह
जाता कक क्या वििाहदत स्र्थल आम रास्ता
है अर्थिा नहीिं चूिंकक स्ियिं विपक्षी ने
उपरोक्त िूसम को आम रास्ता होना
स्िीकार ककया है, अतः अि मजजस्रेट को
इस तथ्य की जािंच करनी र्थी कक क्या
उपरोक्त
िूसम
पर
विपक्षी
/
तनगरानीकतागण
द्िारा
कोई
अिरोि
उत्पन्न ककया गया अर्थिा नहीिं, इस
सम्िन्ि में मजजस्रेट द्िारा पाररत आदेश
एििं पत्रािली के अिलोकन से स्पष्ट है कक
मजजस्रेट द्िारा उियपक्ष की उपजस्र्थतत में
ककये गये स्र्थलीय तनरीक्षण एििं क्षेत्रीय
लेखपाल की ररपोटग के आिार पर प्रश्नगत
आदेश हदनािंक 18.05.2022 पाररत ककया
गया र्था। क्षेत्रीय लेखपाल की आख्या एििं
विपक्षी द्िारा की गयी स्िीकृतत से सिंतुष्ट
होने पर कक प्रश्नगत सािगजतनक रास्ते की
िूसम पर विपक्षी द्िारा समट्टी डालकर
अिरोि उत्पन्न ककया गया है, विद्िान
मजजस्रेट द्िारा हदनािंक 18.05.2022 को
अजन्तम आदेश पाररत ककया गया जो
पूणगतः विधिक है। प्रश्नगत आदेश में कोई
विधिक त्रुहट नहीिं है और न ही विद्िान
अिर न्यायालय द्िारा प्रश्नगत आदेश
पाररत करने में अपने क्षेत्राधिकार का
अततिमण ककया गया है।

अतः उक्त समस्त विश्लेषण से
यह स्पष्ट है कक विद्िान अिर न्यायालय
द्िारा पाररत प्रश्नगत आदेश में कोई
अिैिातनकता, अतनयसमतता या विधिक त्रुहट
नहीिं है न ही उसमें कोई विकृतत दसशगत
होती है। प्रश्नगत आदेश पूणगतः विधिक ि
न्यायसिंगत है, अतः पुष्ट ककये जाने योग्य
है। तनगरानी िलहीन होने के कारण तनरस्त
होने योग्य है।
आदेश

प्रस्तुत दाजण्डक तनगरानी तनरस्त
की जाती है। अिर न्यायालय द्िारा पाररत
आदेश हदनािंककत 07.05.2022 पुष्ट ककया
जाता है।

अिर न्यायालय की पत्रािली इस
आदेश की प्रतत के सार्थ अविलम्ि प्रतत
प्रेवषत की जाये।"
3 All. Prem Narayan Tiwari & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1037

11. Assailing the impugned orders
dated 07.05.2022 and 05.09.2023, the
applicants' counsel submitted as under:-

(i) The report as required under
Section 310 Cr.P.C. was not prepared by
the Magistrate concerned.

(ii) There is no order/direction to
the Lekhpal concerned to submit the report
and despite this, the Lekhpal submitted a
report before the Magistrate concerned and
accordingly, this report ought not to have
been
considered
while
passing
the
impugned orders.

(iii) The alleged way is not a
public way, as such, use of Section 133
Cr.P.C. by the complainant was nothing but
an abuse of process of law.

(iv) A private dispute cannot be
settled by way of preferring an application
under Section 133 Cr.P.C.

(v) Notice as required under
Section 137 was not given by the
Magistrate concerned to the applicants
(alleged encroachers) and as such, the
impugned orders are unsustainable in the
eye of law. In this regard, reliance has been
placed on the judgment dated 03.12.2012
passed by this Court in APPLICATION
U/S 482 No. 40888 of 2012 (Arun Kumar
And Another vs. State of U.P. And
Others), relevant portion of which is
extracted hereunder:-

"The learned counsel for the
applicant submitted that when the applicant
had pleaded that the land in suit is not a
public way on spot, the learned Executive
Magistrate was bound to decide that
question before holding the proceeding
under section 138 CrPC. In this connection,
the learned counsel for the applicant placed
reliance on the provisions of section 137
CrPC, which provides:

"137. Procedure where existence
of public right is denied.

(1) Where an order is made under
section 133 for the purpose of preventing
obstruction, nuisance or danger to the
public in the use of any way, river, channel
or place, the Magistrate shall, on the
appearance before him of the person
against whom the order was made, question
him as to whether he denies the existence
of any public right in respect of the way,
river, channel or place, and if he does so,
the Magistrate shall, before proceeding
under section 138, inquire into the matter.

2.
If
in
such
inquiry
the
Magistrate finds that there is any reliable
evidence in support of such denial, he shall
stay the proceedings until the matter of the
existence of such right has been decided by
a competent court; and if he finds that there
is no such evidence, he shall proceed as
laid down in section 138.

3. A person who has, on being
questioned by the Magistrate under subsection (1), failed to deny the existence of a
public right of the nature therein referred
to, or who, having made such denial, has
failed to adduce reliable evidence in
support thereof, shall not in the subsequent
proceedings be permitted to make any such
denial."

A
perusal
of
the
aforesaid
provision reveals that if the person against
whom the order under section 133 CrPC
has been made, appears before the
Executive
Magistrate,
the
Executive
Magistrate is bound to question him as to
whether he denies the existence of any
public right in respect of the subject matter
of the case and if he denies existence of any
such right, the proper course for the
Executive Magistrate is to inquire into that
matter before holding a proceeding under
section 138 CrPC. In other words, if the
person against whom an order under
section 133 has been made, denies the
existence of a public right in respect of the
1038 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
subject matter of the case, the Executive
Magistrate has to hold an inquiry to find
out whether or not there is any reliable
evidence in support of such denial. If there
is reliable evidence in support of the denial,
the Magistrate has to stay the proceedings
of the case until the matter of existence of
the public right has been decided by the
competent Court. The Executive Magistrate
has jurisdiction to proceed under section
138 CrPC, only when there is no reliable
evidence to show that the alleged right is a
public right or there is no denial of
existence of any public right. It may also be
mentioned that if the person concerned fails
to deny the existence of public right or fails
to adduce reliable evidence in support of
such right, he will not be permitted to make
any such denial in any subsequent
proceeding. In view of the legal position as
emerged from the provisions of section 137
CrPC, the proper course for the Executive
Magistrate was to hold an inquiry to find
out whether or not there is reliable evidence
in support of the plea that there exists no
public way on the disputed land, specially
when the applicant had specifically denied
the existence of such right."

12. Opposing the present application,
Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned Senior Member of
Bar assisted by Sri Rakesh Chandra
Tewari, submitted as under:-

(i) It is an admission of the
applicants that the way in dispute is a
'public way' and the admission is best piece
of evidence as held in the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of
Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale
v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi, 1959 SCC
OnLine SC 54 : (1960) 1 SCR 773 : AIR
1960 SC 100 and accordingly, Magistrate
has not committed any illegality in passing
the impugned order dated 07.05.2022
affirmed vide order impugned dated
05.09.2023.

(ii) Undisputedly, the Magistrate
himself visited the spot and in the order
dated 07.05.2022, the Magistrate himself
observed that encroachment exits on the
way and as such even if the report of
Lekhpal is ignored the undisputed fact
would be that 'public way' has been
obstructed by the applicants.

(iii) It is settled position of law
that if the opposite party admits the
existence of public right, the Magistrate is
not required to hold any inquiry rather he
may straightaway proceed under Section
138 of the Code to pass the final order and
as the applicants have admitted the
existence of 'public way' before the SDM
by filing response dated 28.04.2022, the
SDM was not required to make any inquiry
under Section 137. Under the law the
further inquiry is only with regard to
ascertain the fact as to whether the opposite
party has encroached on the 'public way' or
not. The SDM has proceeded correctly in
the procedure and the Revisional Court also
records its satisfaction. In this regard,
reliance has been placed on the judgment
passed in the case of Shri Thaneswar Bora
Vs. Shri Kumud Sharmah, 1986(2)
Gauhati Law Reports 161.

(iv) The Parliament has provided
a specific chapter containing summary
procedure in the matter of Maintenance of
public order and Tranquility (From Section
133 to 143) of Cr.P.C. which is a complete
code in regard to the said issue and thus,
the other provisions of the Code pertaining
to inquiry and trial are not applicable in the
subject matter. On this aspect, reliance has
been placed on the judgment passed in the
case of Shri Thaneswar Bora (supra) and
judgment dated 03.03.2017 passed in 482
petition No.956 of 2002 (Ramvriksha Vs.
State of U.P).
3 All. Prem Narayan Tiwari & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1039

(v) The judgment relied upon by
the applicant namely Arun Kumar v state of
up dated 03.12.2012 passed in 482 petition
No. 40888 of 2012 is not applicable as it
pertains to the fact where 'public way' was
denied.

(vi)
The
magistrate
is
not
required to ask the applicant about the fact
that he denies the existence of the 'public
way' or not where written reply is filed
admitting the existence of 'public way'. On
this aspect, reliance has been placed on the
judgment dated 18.09.1992 passed by
Bombay High Court in the case of ALAX
Fernandes v state and others.

13. Considered the aforesaid and
perused the record.

14. In order to decide the present
application, this Court finds it appropriate
to refer some authorities, in addition to the
authorities referred above, wherein the
scope of relevant provision of Cr.P.C. i.e.
Section 133 to 143 have been taken note of.

15. In the case of Raghubar Dutt v.
Suresh Chandra, 1987 ACR 566, this
Court has discussed the scope of Section137 of Cr.P.C. and observed as follows:-

"5. A bare reading of Section 137
would indicate that the provisions therein
are to prevent the Magistrate from
arrogating himself the power of civil court.
Further the Magistrate need not hold an
elaborate enquiry regarding the rights of
the parties. The ambit of the enquiry is to
find out if there is some prima facie reliable
evidence in support of the denial of public
right. The Magistrate is not called upon to
weigh the evidence in order to determine
the rights and title or truth of the denial.
But he has just to be satisfied as to whether
there is some evidence which could
indicate prima facie that it was possible for
a competent court to place reliance upon
the same. It does not obviously mean that
evidence of such a character would
definitely establish title of the land.
Otherwise in that case the legislature would
not have used the words 'just reliable
evidence', rather the words used would
have been that the Magistrate would decide
on the basis of evidence being led as to
whether the person against whom the said
order has been passed, has a right in the
land to create unlawful obstruction in the
public way. The language of Section 137(2)
of the Code is couched in such a way that
the reliable evidence would depend upon
the circumstances of each case. To put it
differently, it only connotes where the
evidence was such that if unrebutted, it
would prove the non-existence of public
right as alleged by the person against whom
conditional order was passed See Lala
Bissoomal v. State, 1957 AWR 551, T.N.
Sudhakaran v. Dr. L.M. George, 1977 Cri
LJ 542 and Jaswant Singh v. Jagir Singh,
1971 SCC OnLine P&H 217 : 1972 Cri LJ
792. Further the legislature did not use the
word
'evidence'
which
definitely
establishes the right to claim. In other
words, reliable evidence can be taken to be
a form of evidence which is not the basis of
unreliable or forged evidence. The duty of
a Magistrate is merely to see whether the
evidence in support of denial of public right
is reliable.

6. In the instant case it is better to
refer to the evidence led by the opposite
parties to prove the denial of public way or
the unlawful obstruction created. It was
alleged by the opposite parties that plot No.
394 did not contain public way and there
was no such entry like public way in plot
No. 394 in revenue papers. Similarly in
Khatauni for 1387 to 1392F an area of 8
biswa of plot No. 394 was entered as Goth
1040 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and there was no mention about any public
way or Rasta. Similarly extract of Khasra
for the years 1374 to 1379 F also mentions
the area of 8 biswa of plot No. 3 94A as
Goth. There was no mention of any public
way or Rasta. It was for the applicant to
move an application Under Section 133 to
explain as to how this entry of Goth was
converted into Rasta. This was the question
pertaining to right and title. The aforesaid
extracts of Khasra and Khatauni were
certainly reliable evidence within the
meaning of Section 137(2) of the Code. On
the basis of such evidence the Magistrate
ought to have stayed the proceedings until
the matter of existence of such right of
public way was decided by a competent
court. The Sessions Judge has correctly
allowed the revision by the impugned
order."

16. In Wali Uddin v. State of U.P.,
1988 (12) ACR 1, this Court has elaborated
the language of Section-137(1) of Cr.P.C.
and concluded in following terms:-

"23. It is also to be noticed that
under Section 137(1) the Legislature has
used the word "that after the denial of such
right by opposite party the Magistrate shall
inquire into the matter" and not that the
Magistrate shall adjudicate upon or decide
the matter or controversy between the
parties. The word 'inquire', means eager, to
acquire information. The word 'inquire',
according to Shorter Oxford English
Dictionary means to search into, to seek
knowledge, to make inquisition, to make
investigation, to seek information by
questioning, to seek or to try to find out.
The word reliable evidence having been
used and the Magistrate having been
directed to inquire into the matter and not
to decide or adjudicate upon, it is clear that
the person denying the public right has to
put forward a just and bonafide claim. In
case the Magistrate finds that there is some
reliable evidence and certainly not a
conclusive evidence in support of the
denial of any public right to get the matter
decided by a competent Court. I am
however, of the view that the Section does
not make it clear as to who is the person as
to whether first party or the second party,
who has to approach the Civil Court. One
thing more may be clarified that in case the
Magistrate finds that there is no such
reliable evidence in that event he shall
proceed in view of the provisions of
Section 138 of the Code. In the instant case
what has been done is entirely different.
Even though the Magistrate confirmed the
conditional order but the revision has been
disposed of by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge in total disregard of the
provisions of Section 133 read with Section
137 of the Code. The learned Sessions
Judge was exercising the same jurisdiction
as was to be exercised by the learned
Magistrate. He must have also proceeded to
decide the case just with a view to make an
enquiry as to whether there was some
reliable evidence led by the opposite party
No. 2 who denied the existence of such
right and in case he found that there was
reliable evidence his jurisdiction ceases and
it was for the civil Court to decide the
same."

17. The Calcutta High Court in the
case of Md. Basar Ali Molla v. State of
West Bengal, 2006 SCC OnLine Cal 444
has considered the aspect of emergency
attached with the dispute regarding public
nuisance and has held that it does not apply
to private nuisance and private dispute and
it is never intended to settle a private
dispute. The relevant paragraphs of Md.
Basar Ali Molla's case (supra) are being
reproduced herein below:-
3 All. Prem Narayan Tiwari & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1041

"7. Section 133 Cr. PC relates to
passing of order for removal of public
nuisance in case of emergency. It does not
apply to private nuisance and private
dispute and it is never intended to settle a
private dispute.

8. It has been laid down in the
case reported in 1957 SCC OnLine MP 149
: AIR 1958 MP 350 that Chapter X of the
Code of Criminal Procedure deals with
"Public Nuisances" and not with private
nuisances. The remedy for the latter is the
civil
suit
although
what
constitutes
nuisance may be common to both classes.
Section 133 Cr. PC provides a speedy and
summary remedy in case of urgency where
danger to public interest or public health is
concerned. In all other cases the party
should be referred to the remedy under the
ordinary law.

9. Reference may also be made in
the case reported in 1963 SCC OnLine Ker
160 : AIR 1964 Ker 252 where it has been
held that Section 133 Cr. PC can be used
only where there has been an invasion of
public rights. The case reported in 1957
SCC OnLine Pat 135 : AIR 1958 Pat 210 is
also relevant in this case' where it has been
held that Section 133 Cr. PC cannot be
used as a short cut to achieve what one
would like to achieve in a Civil Court. The
whole object of Section 133 Cr. PC is that
the public should not suffer and that such
dangers or obstructions caused by the
members of the public should be removed
at the earliest possible moment.

10. In that case a decision of
Allahabad High Court reported in Farzand
Ali v. Hakim Ali, 1914 SCC OnLine All
261 was referred. In that case it was held
now it is certainly expedient that in all
proceedings initiated under Section 133 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure the
Magistrate should bear in mind that he is
supposed to be acting purely in the interests
of the public and should be on his guard
against tendency to use this section as
substitute for litigation in the Civil Courts
in order to the settlement of a private
dispute.

11. In the case reported in 1942
SCC OnLine All 103 : AIR 1943 All 19 it
has been stated that the proceedings under
Section 133 Cr. PC is not intended to settle
private dispute between two members of
the public.

12. Reference can also be made
in the case reported in Tejmal Punamchand
Burad v. State of Maharashtra, 1991 SCC
OnLine Bom 679 where it has been held
that Chapter XB of Criminal Procedure
Code deals with "public nuisances" and
provides a speedy and summary method for
dealing with them, in cases of great
emergency and where there is imminent
danger to the public interest.

13. In the instant case there are no
dependable materials to hold that the
disputed pathway was being used by the
public at large but it appears that the same
was used by the students and teachers of
Sisu Siksha Kendra from 2003 to last week
of February, 2005 and the same was not
being used from the last week of February,
2005 as existence from the said pathway
was destroyed and the same merged with
the fishery. So, it does not appear that the
public at large is being affected and there
was any obstruction of public way or public
way has been destroyed and the same
requires repair. So, no case of sufferance of
public is made out and it does not appear
that the Magistrate had to act purely in the
interest of the public. There is no invasion
of public right. If it assumed that
obstruction is caused to the use of the
pathway in question by the students,
teachers and guardians of students of Sisu
Siksha Kendra by the petitioners then it is
an obstruction not to the public at large but
1042 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to a handful of persons and remedy for said
obstruction cannot be had by resorting to
provision of Section 133 Cr.PC. If there is
any nuisance the same is purely a private
nuisance for which Civil Court may be
approached
for
appropriate
remedy
according to law. There is room for
contention that Section 133 Cr.PC also
does not contemplate any order for
repairing of road which has been abolished
and also any order in connection with such
repair.

14.