IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2010 / 21ST SRAVANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3307 of 2010() ------------------------- REF.A.5622/2009 of SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT: --------------- BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.VELU, CHAKKATTAPARAMBIL, CHENNOTHUKANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.DILEEP (KALLAR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KOZHIKODE REP.THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.B.JAYASURYA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- CRLM.C.NO.3307 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2010 O R D E R Preventive jurisdiction exercised with the Executive Magistrate, as vested under Chapter X B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, issuing Ext.A3 conditional order to the petitioner to remove an obstruction alleged to have been caused over a public way, is impeached in the present petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on a complaint filed by a person, named, Gladys Mini Francis alleging obstruction to a pathway used by the public by the petitioner, the Sub Divisional Magistrate initially issued a notice to him and he had filed objection contending that no public way is in existence and the allegations raised are false. Thereafter, without conducting any further enquiry in the matter, Ext.A3 order had been issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate directing the CRL.M.C.3307/10 2 petitioner to abate the obstruction by removing the soil from the road within the time fixed, or to appear before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and show cause why the order should not be enforced. Pursuant to issue of Ext.A3 order, it is submitted, the Sub Divisional Magistrate has passed another order as well against the petitioner. What is produced in the petition is only Ext.A3, a conditional order issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate as under Section 133 (1) of the Cr.P.C. Public nuisances covered under Chapter X B of the Cr.P.C. are essentially civil disputes, which, if not immediately attended to by the executive authorities may spill over and create law and order problems. To avoid such mishaps and to abate public nuisances, the executive magistrate have been vested with the authority to take appropriate action following the procedures covered by the sections of Chapter X B of the Cr.P.C. The right of the petitioner to ventilate and substantiate the objection already raised by him is insulated by the provisions therein. What has been issued under Ext.A3 order is only a conditional order directing him to show cause why it should not be enforced. CRL.M.C.3307/10 3 I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the order so passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp CRL.M.C.3307/10 4