Criminal Misc. No. M-22554 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-22554 of 2011 Date of decision : 27.07.2011 Shamsher Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab and another ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. A.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) This is a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of orders dated 12.11.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nihal Singh Wala and also order dated 13.06.2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by the revisional court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the courts below have gravely erred in directing the petitioner to remove the nuisance allegedly caused by him. According to him, the passage from which the encroachment has been directed to remove is not a public passage at all. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears that an application under section 133 Cr.P.C. was preferred by Bhajan Singh (respondent No. 2 herein) whereby direction was sought not to encroach upon public passage by way of storing wheat chaff thereon and sowing potato crop. After considering the evidence on record and hearing the matter at length, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nihal Singh Wala came to the conclusion that petitioner had encroached upon the public Criminal Misc. No. M-22554 of 2011 2 passage by placing wheat chaff therein and sowing potato crop. He thus directed him to remove the same within 10 days. The petitioner, however, preferred a revision petition before the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Moga. The said court came to the conclusion that demarcation was correctly done by Tehsildar Nihal Singh Wala. On the basis of material on record, he came to the conclusion that petitioner had encroached upon the public passage by storing wheat chaff and sowing potato. He, thus, dismissed the revision petition preferred by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any infirmity legal or otherwise with the said orders. Both the courts below have arrived at a finding of fact on the basis of evidence and material on record. There is no ground to interfere in the impugned orders in inherent jurisdiction of this court. The petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. July 27, 2011 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE