Crl. Misc. No.M-37707 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-37707 of 2010 Date of Decision: 22.12.2010 Ashok Kumar ....Petitioner Versus Sandla Devi ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Sushil Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of the impugned order dated 31.05.2010 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pathankot and order dated 07.12.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur. The complaint, in question under Section 133 Cr.P.C was filed by the respondent praying for the removal of Atta Chakki being run by the petitioner on the ground that it is causing nuisance and is a danger to the house of the respondent-complainant. It was further alleged that due to functioning of the Atta Chakki, noise pollution is caused, due to which, the health of the respondent's family was being affected and that the running of Atta Chakki was creating unbearable nuisance. The aforesaid application filed by the respondent was allowed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pathankot vide order dated 31.05.2010. Crl. Misc. No.M-37707 of 2010 2 Aggrieved, the petitioner filed revision petition against the impugned order before the Court of Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 07.12.2010. Hence, the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that Atta Chakki is in existence since long and no complaint had been raised from the neighbourhood during all this period and that many other Atta Chakki are also in operation and there is no complaint from any side. Reliance has been placed on various judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court, as well as, of this Court rendered in the cases titled as Makhan Lal vs. Buta Singh reported as 2003(2) RCR(Crl.) 416, Vasant Manga Nikumba and others vs. Baburao Bhikanna Naidu (D) by Lrs. and another reported as 1995 Supplement (4) SCC 54, Pritam Singh etc. v. Avtar Singh etc. reported as 1973 Current Law Journal 902, Gian Singh and others vs. The State of Punjab and others PLR 468 and Madha Singh vs. Sadha Singh and another reported as 1986(1) RCR (Crl.) 444. Heard. This is a revision petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Admittedly, the revision petition has also been dismissed. Second revision is not maintainable under Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the present petition is nothing but a second revision petition under the garb of Section 482 Cr.P.C. No doubt, this Court has inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to set aside the order. However, it is a well settled proposition of law that Section 482 Cr.P.C can only be invoked, in case, there is apparent injustice or misuse of process of law. In the present case, no such injustice has been brought to the notice of this Court or as to how the impugned order dated 31.05.2010 and the order dated 07.12.2010, vide which, the revision petition was dismissed, suffers from any illegality. Crl. Misc. No.M-37707 of 2010 3 In fact, the Sub Divisional Magistrate had visited the spot and on spot verification, he found that the cracks existed in the house of the respondent and the pollution was there on account of the functioning of the Atta Chakki. As such, the judgments relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner, does not help the petitioner. In the above referred cases, there was no immediate danger or emergency for the removal of structure, whereas, in the present case, cracks had developed in the building and damage was being caused to the residence of the respondent and the pollution was causing health hazards to whole of the family members. As such, no infirmity has been pointed out in the well reasoned order dated 31.05.2010 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pathankot and order dated 07.12.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, vide which the revision petition was dismissed. Dismissed being devoid of merits. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 22.12.2010 JUDGE gurpreet