HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Misc. Petition No.364 of 2009 P ETITIONER: Smt. Kanti Sharma, W/o Lt. Krishna Kumar Sharma, aged about 65 years, Owner of House No.11/62, 63, R/o Opp. Roopam Saree Palace, Malviya Road, Police Station Kotwali, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Sub Divisional Magistrate, Raipur (C.G. Vinod Kumar Gupta, S/o Shri Badri Prasad Gupta, age 58 yrs. Pramod Kumar Gupta, S/o Badri Frasad Gupta, age 56 yrs. Both respondents No.2 & 3 are R/o Near Big Shop, Maiviya Road, Raipur, Police Station Kotwaii, Raipur (C.G.) {Petitin under ect 4 te ode f rim Pcr, 973} o Sion 82 of h C o Cinal roedue 1 Present: Mr. Adhiraj Surana, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agrawai, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent RESPONDENTS: No.1. Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL ORDER (20-7—2009) . This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is for quashment of the order dated 29-6-2009 passed by the 4m Additional Sessions Judg (F.T.C.), Raipur in Criminal Revision No.60/2009 affirming the order dated 19—3-2007 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Raipur in Criminal Case No.2/2006, whereby learned Sub Divisional Magistrat has rejected the application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 63 of the Cr.P.C. for removal of alleged public nuisance on the ground, that the alleged nuisance is not a public nuisance. . Order is challenged on the ground that both the Courts below have committed illegality by not removing the nuisance which was a publi nuisance and thereby committed illegality causing Serious prejudice to‘ ff/y the petitioner. . ) 1 e e , 1 c . hve h l n par and eed h der 3. l a eard earned cousel for the ties prus te or gne ordr of h S DonaI atrt co of oth , umns & photograph Lard couns or the oner subs that h pene h Ch n possSon of rpoent N 2 & 3 ol house whc aated cdo a llse at any om er huse to pub ro d ay cus amag o th and ub ppy tltl fid lication nd Seti 133 th for removl f ch pub an an t Mi orporn so s no for rval of b e Su nal trate ha m the appa o te groun tt ce of caay no damae wo e aused pu therefor t aleged nsce s no pub unce ot revable ur Se he l Uian i t lic nisa n mo nde ction 1 o h C Learn counsel fthe sus that he aat hous n quesn s uate ee ubc road nd ma colle at n momen nd c dama to the pb erer cs he o nan B arned Sub al atrt has nt. d a ord o reo of such nance he s rr' passe b the ub nal agtrate mnted the order ugne Th order mpuned an the order of the Su nal a . e ig d b DiViSio Magistrte l that responden & 3 are enants nd h pr revea ts N02 t a te etitione is landr pute nng before he I Cur a spond N02 ha n id Si n ars h agis i . & 3 ve ot pa rent nce twety ye Te Mtrate s ompete to remove pu nuanc To ng n appan of Sec cnt blic ise bri i lictio tion J the C the us be et danger perty cnsequl nce to e ub The nanc conca t rsulng n daner to the e or property due o ely lapses et he ec an purose en Secon 33 of the C essenlly, t reven pub nUisae n nvv o a sens of urcy th s that the agstrate fs tak recose eately rerabl dmage ould b one to the pub lt apps t a condn o te nis at ti is d i t. appy ut likli hp pomt time lt ds no With all petia uince the her an plied ense if Mi ail to e ur immdi irpae‘ a w e d lic lie o itio f h uance the me when the order passed an it is not ntended o l to fure ehood or what may apen at some later of oe t deal otnl nsa and on ot hd ap when the nUisance is in eXistence 2 Impud e te ub IVISI Mgisae pies er docet s . ene el f petiti mit te titiors ou whI Is I eSI esnds o Is an d ih Is In dilpid onitin nd may coap ment H o ls adjommg llc ad an m ae de t e public plic roert The peoner has le an app uer con of e Cr P C a o su lic nuisce d he uniCipal Catio has al isued tice emo nUisance ut larned: b DiViSio Magis s disissed liction n h d ha in as uslit g uld b c to blic e i 33 f te r P C ed urr bmit t dilpided e i tio i Sitd bSid pli a y aps ay t a ause ge ulic thfoe it ome Within ti ambit f uisce ut le DiViSion Mgisae o passe ny er f mval public uis and t aid odc d y S DiViSio Mis is aiain by v impd lod oiVil dis is pedi t CIVI ot nd reents L 133 of r P C er mt imminn to the pro and, oentia uisan th plic Uise is the omitnt: ac eti i g lif t lik col c ‘ T objt d p bhid ti 1 r P C is tia o pt lic nc ad iole f e gen in e In the present case admittedly respondents No 2 & 3 are tenants and the petitioner rs landlord CIVII dispute rs pending between the parties ‘before the cuvrl Court and the present proceeding, which ls urgent In} nature Is also pending smce 2006 but no damage has caused to public The alleged house ls situated In a private place although It Is near public road but the only ground that the burldmg Is Situated near public road is not suffICIent for invoking the prowsmns of Section 133 of the Cr P The petitioner is required to show that the alleged nuisance is a public nuisance and Will cause damage to the public at large. The present V proceeding is also pending for a long time suffices the urgent nature of the case After taking into consideration the facts and Circumstances of the case the Courts below have refused to remove the nUisance on thei ground that the alleged nUisance is not a pubic nUisance . Consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed and ismissed Learnedl Courts below have not committed any illegality The alleged nUIsance is not a public nuisance and may be a private nuisance not removablei under the prowsmns of Sections 133 to 138 of the Cr P C i l ’ it is hereby‘ M Sd/— g—g T.P. SHARMA Judge l g d.