IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 134 of 2002. Date of decision: 3.11.2008. Gita Ram ….. Petitioner Versus Om Parkash & Ors. … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate, for respondents No. 1, 2 and 4. Mrs. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No. 3. V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral): This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482, 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against the order passed on 7.5.2002 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the revision petitioner as complainant filed a complaint before the S.D.M., Paonta Sahib, on 20.6.2000, alleging that the respondents had closed a public path being used by 30-35 residents of the Ward which was causing inconvenience to them. The said complaint was signed by the revision petitioner as complainant and several other persons. On the said date, the S.D.M. directed the Tehsildar to report after visiting the spot. The spot was inspected by the Tehsildar and he submitted his report. The S.D.M. also recorded the statement of complainant Gita Ram as well as witness 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Malkiat Singh on 20.7.2000 and passed an order under Section 133 Cr.P.C. directing respondent Om Parkash to remove the obstruction caused to the path. On revision, the said order was set aside by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Being aggrieved, the said order has been challenged mainly under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. It is clear from a perusal of the complaint filed by the complaint that he had not specified the width of the path, dimensions of the path and had not attached any Tatima or site plan showing the path in question where it starts, where it ends and what is the width of the path. Therefore, it is clear that the path in question was not specified and thus, the impugned order is sustainable in the eyes of law. According to Section 133 Cr.P.C., this order could have been passed by the S.D.M. in regard to the public path and before passing conditional order under Section 133 Cr.P.C., he could act on a report of the police officer or taking such information as he thinks fit. However, it is clear that there is no report of police officer and he had simply recorded the statement of the complainant and one witness and passed the conditional order for removal of the obstruction to the path. Admittedly, the path is not recorded as a public path and, therefore, no such order could have been passed by the S.D.M. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in setting aside the order passed by the S.D.M. is sustainable in the eyes of law and does not call for an interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the petition filed by the petitioner, which is dismissed 3 accordingly. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Civil Court for seeking appropriate relief. V.K. Ahuja ) November 3, 2008 Judge (BSS)