LALMOHAN PATNAIK Vs. HARIHAR TRIPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application in revision is directed against a notice dated a -3 -1967 issued against the Petitioner by a First Class Magistrate, Bhanjanagar. The notice runs as follows:

(2.) IT is contended by Mrs. A.K. Padhi, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner that the construction of the latrine by the Petitioner by forcibly occupying the backyard of the opposite party, even if true, cannot be made the subject matter of a dispute under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that consequently the initiation of the proceedings by the learned Magistrate under Section 133, Code of Criminal Procedure is without jurisdiction.

(3.) THE Allahabad High Court in Ram Dayal Misra v. Mt. Jagdamba Debi and Anr., A.I.R. 1942 All. 443 expressed the view that the proceedings under Section 133 are not intended to settle private disputes between different members of the public that they are intended to protect the public as a whole against inconveniences, and that if a person has any private right which he wishes to enforce, he should take his troubles to the civil Court. Chaturvedi, J. in Shaukat Hussain and Anr. v. Sheodayal Saksaina, A.I.R. 1955 MP 350 while holding that Chapter X of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with "Public Nuisances" and not with private nuisances, expressed the view that Section 133, Code of Criminal Procedure provides a speedy and summary remedy in case of urgency where danger to public interest or public health is concerned and that in all other cases the party should be referred to the remedy under the ordinary law.