NITIN SAHU Vs. SURESH KUMAR SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/complainant has preferred this revision under Section 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C., 1973 to challenge the order dated 07/12/2017, passed by the Third ASJ, Raisen in Cr.R. No. 71/17, wherein the order dated 13/11/2017, passed by SDM, Bareli in Criminal Case No. 02/SDM/Bareli/16-17 under section 133 of Cr.P.C., 1973 has been set aside.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case given rise to the filing of the present petition in brief is that, the respondent and the petitioner are the neighbours. The respondent is running a flour mill and rice mill in his house. The petitioner filed a complaint under section 133 of Cr.P.C., 1973 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bareli, in which he contended that the petitioner's house is adjacent to the respondent's house. Respondent is running a flour mill and rice mill with his motor of 25 horse power when rice mill is being run, it makes a high sound which creates nuisance for the petitioner and his family members. It also creates vibrations in the house. Petitioner's old mother could not be able to take rest because of the noise of the mills and fallen ill. Petitioner's small children are not being able to study properly nor they are able to sleep properly. Their hearing power has been reduced because of the high noise created by the mills. The neighbour residents are also effected by the noise pollution and the mill, therefore, effect the health adversely to all the family members of the petitioner. Hence, he requested for legal action under section 133 of Cr.P.C., 1973

(3.) The respondent/the owner of the flour and rice mills vehemently opposed the contentions and raised the plea that the rice mill has been functional since 1998 with permission from the Panchayat and only 10 horse power connection has been obtained for running of the mill. The mill is the only source of income for the respondent. The neighbours and the other residence are using the rice and flour mill and have never raised any objection stating that it inconvenient for them. Therefore, the petitioner due to personal grudge had filed this application has been dismissed.