SHANKAR LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by Shankar Lal and Baldeva Ram under sec. 482, Cr. P. C. for quashing the order of the Sessions Judge, Churu, dated August 14, 1989, affirming the order of the Addl. District Magistrate, Churu dated April 26, 1989, passed on an application under Sec. 141, Cr. P. C. moved by Dr. Surendra Kumar, respondent No. 2.

(2.) THE facts leading to this petition are that on July 29, 1987, Dr. Surendra Kumar made an application under Sec. 133, Cr. P. C. before the Addl. District Magistrate, Churu complaining therein that the carrying on of the trade or occupation of running a saw-mill by the petitioners adjoining the house of respondent No. 2 was injurious to the health and physical comfort of the residents of that locality. He prayed that the petitioners be directed not to run the saw-mill and hot to cause any nuisance. Along with the application, affidavit of Ranveer Singh and some documents issued by the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Churu and the Municipal Commissioner, Churu were also produced by respondent No. 2. THE Addl. District Magistrate examined the matter on July 29, 1987 and considered that the carrying on the saw mill near the house of respondent No. 2 was illegal and it should be removed and the pieces of cut-wood should also be removed. He issued this conditional order requiring the petitioner to resist from running the saw mill and to remove the nuisance and, if they object so to do, to appear. before him on August 5, 1987. THE petitioners appeared before the Addl. District Magistrate and filed their objections on August 12, 1987. It appears that on October 31, 1987, the petitioner filed an application that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. THE compromise was enclosed to the application in original. It was mentioned that there had not remained then any dispute on account of the compromise and, therefore respondent No. 2 did not want to proceed further with the -proceedings under Sec. 133. Cr. P. C. It was prayed that the proceedings may be dropped. THE compromise appended to the application stipulated that the petitioner would remove the saw-machine from the place of its present installation to a place near the wall of the adjoining school within two months. It was further stipulated that in case the petitioner would not remove the saw-mill, respondent would be entitled to get it removed through the Court. It was also agreed that the petitioner will not stack logs of wood towards the side of the house of respondent No. 2. Lastly, it was provided that in case the saw-mill would not be removed within a period of two months, respondent No. 2 would be entitled to recover Rs. 500/- per month as damages from the petitioners. It appears from the proceedings before the Addl. District Magistrate, Churu of October 31, 1987 that respondent No. 2 and the petitioners were present and both the sides agreed to the compromise. Consequently, the Addl. District Magistrate dropped the proceedings under Sec. 133, Cr. P. C.

(3.) IN order to do justice to the parties, and to prevent the abuse of the process of the Churu, it is necessary not only to quash the' orders challenged by the petitioners in this petition, but also to quash the order of the Addl. District Magistrate, Churu dated October 31, 1987, dropping the proceedings under Sec. 133, Cr. P. C. and to direct him to further proceed with the Case No. 5/1987 of his Court under Sec. 133, Cr. P. C. and to decide it in accordance with law and keeping in view the provisions contained in Sec. 138 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and other provisions relevant thereto.