Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 202 of 2024 (In the matter of a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973). Uma Nayak …. Petitioner(s) -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in this case through Hybrid Arrangement Mode: For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Jyotirmaya Sahoo, Adv. For Opp. Party(s) : Mr. Tej Kumar, ASC Mr. Prasanta Kumar Tripathy, Adv. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING: -20.05.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT: -25.06.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 02.12.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chatrapur in Criminal Revision No. 02 of 2023, whereby the learned revisional court set aside the order dated 05.01.2023 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chatrapur in Cr.M.C. No. 84 of 2022. I. FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. The Petitioner asserts that she is the owner and is in peaceful possession of the land classified as Kisam-Gharabari, situated at Devi Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Jul-2026 18:24:41 Signature Not Verified Page 2 Nagar, 3rd Line, Chatrapur, under Mouza Kumarbegpalli, pertaining to Khata No. 165/564, Plot No. 222/509/1883, measuring Ac. 0.031 dec. 3. The Petitioner submitted an application before the learned S.D.M., Chatrapur, alleging that an 11 KV electric pole exists on the Petitioner’s land, causing inconvenience and hardship, as the Petitioner has constructed a dwelling house thereon. 4. On the basis of the said application, the learned S.D.M., Chatrapur initiated a proceeding under Section 133 Cr.P.C. vide Cr.M.C. No. 84 of 2022 and issued notice to the Opposite Parties and also called for a report from the Revenue Authority. 5. The learned S.D.M., Chatrapur, upon hearing the parties and perusing the materials on record, directed the Opposite Parties to take immediate steps for removal of the 11 KV line for the safety of the Petitioner as well as the inhabitants of the locality. 6. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties challenged the said order of the learned S.D.M., Chatrapur by filing Criminal Revision No. 02 of 2023 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chatrapur. The learned revisional court, upon perusal of the materials on record, was pleased to set aside the order of the learned S.D.M., Chatrapur, holding the same to be illegal and non est in the eye of law. 7. The Petitioner, having no other efficacious alternative remedy available under law, has approached this Court for just and proper adjudication of the matter in the interest of justice. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Jul-2026 18:24:41 Signature Not Verified Page 3 II. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER: 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions in support of his contentions: i. The Petitioner submits that the order dated 02.12.2023 passed in Crl. Rev. No. 02 of 2023 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chatrapur is illegal, arbitrary, and not sustainable in law. ii. The Petitioner submitted that she is the owner and is in peaceful possession of the land, Kisam-Gharabari, situated at Devi Nagar, 3rd Line, Chatrapur, under Mouza Kumarbegpalli, pertaining to Khata No. 165/564, Plot No. 222/509/1883, measuring Ac. 0.031 dec. She submitted that an electric pole of 11 KV exists on her land, causing inconvenience and hardship in constructing a dwelling house for residential purposes. The said pole also creates a hazardous situation and poses a risk to school-going children and animals of the locality at large who are passing under the hazardous electric line. In this regard, the Petitioner along with others submitted several representations to the Opposite Parties, but the same evoked no response. iii. The Petitioner submitted that Devi Nagar area constitutes more than 500 dwelling houses and is a public area. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chatrapur, upon careful scrutiny of the case records, found that an 11 KV electrical pole exists on the land of the petitioner, which causes inconvenience and hardship to the petitioner as well as the inhabitants of the locality and also poses a risk to life and property. Accordingly, the learned SDM directed the Executive Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Jul-2026 18:24:41 Signature Not Verified Page 4 Engineer (Electrical), TPSODL, Chatrapur Sub Division to take immediate steps for removal of the said line for the safety of the petitioner as well as the inhabitants of the locality. The said order passed by the S.D.M. is legal and not contrary to law. III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite parties made the following submissions in support of his contentions: i. It was submitted that proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. are not intended to settle private disputes between individuals, but are meant to protect the public at large from inconvenience, obstruction or nuisance. Under Section 133 Cr.P.C., a Magistrate is empowered to make a conditional order upon receiving a report from a police officer or other information disclosing the existence of a public nuisance, unlawful obstruction, or any other circumstance contemplated under the provision. The expression “other information” occurring in Section 133 Cr.P.C. would include information furnished by any person or facts taken cognizance of by the Magistrate suo motu regarding the existence of a public nuisance, unlawful obstruction causing annoyance or injury to the health or physical comfort of the community, or other contingencies enumerated therein. It was further submitted that, by virtue of Clause 10 of the Notification issued by the Energy Department, the installation of the 11 KV line during the erstwhile OSEB period, having been made in due process of law, cannot be regarded as a public nuisance or unlawful obstruction. It Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Jul-2026 18:24:41 Signature Not Verified Page 5 was contended that Section 133 Cr.P.C. is intended for removal of unlawful obstruction or nuisance affecting the public and has no application to a dispute concerning private property. Since the land over which the 11 KV line exists is a private land and the dispute is essentially private in nature, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was justified in setting aside the order passed by the learned S.D.M., Chatrapur. ii. It was submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chatrapur, having held that the petition under Section 133 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable as the land in question is not a public place, rightly set aside the order passed by the learned S.D.M., Chatrapur. It was contended that the petitioner has challenged the said revisional order by filing the present CRLMC under Section 482 Cr.P.C. without any sustainable ground. It was further submitted that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is legal and proper, as the dispute pertains to a private land, no public nuisance is involved, and the installation of the 11 KV line was made in exercise of powers under Clause 10 of the Department of Energy Notification dated 24.02.2009. It was also submitted that there exists a right of way issue in shifting the 11 KV pole and, therefore, its removal is not feasible. iii. It was submitted that although five persons initiated proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. before the learned S.D.M., Chatrapur on the ground that the 11 KV pole installed on a private plot posed a danger Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Jul-2026 18:24:41 Signature Not Verified Page 6 to the public, the present CRLMC has been filed solely by the petitioner. Since the pole exists behind the plot in question, it is evident that the entire proceeding was initiated at the behest of the petitioner to address his personal grievance rather than any genuine public concern. iv. It was further submitted that the son of the petitioner approached the learned GRF, Berhampur, where the technical fact-finding authority comprehensively examined the matter and, upon due consideration, rejected the complaint preferred. Such rejection, having been made by the competent authority, attained finality and concluded the issue. However, the petitioner has suppressed the said fact while invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Thus, the petition is also liable to be dismissed for suppression of material facts. v. It was submitted that the objection filed by the Opposite Parties before the learned GRF, Berhampur, stated that there was no scope to carry out the shifting of the 11 KV line due to Right of Way (ROW) issues, as revealed during spot verification conducted by the Opposite Parties. The findings of the learned GRF, Berhampur are self- explanatory from its order. Upon verification, it was observed that the 11 KV rural feeder is an old feeder emanating from the 11/11 KV PSS, Chatrapur, which provides power supply to the rural areas of Chatrapur and passes over the land of the petitioner. The feeder also passes over a functional railway track and has been running through Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Jul-2026 18:24:41 Signature Not Verified Page 7 the backside of the land in question since the period of OSEB without any interruption from any person. It was further observed that the petitioner had purchased the land subsequent to the installation of the pole. Since there is no scope for shifting the line and the matter involves ROW issues, the petitioner has no valid ground to challenge the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chatrapur, at Ganjam. Accordingly, the present CRLMC is liable to be dismissed. It was further submitted that the present CRLMC amounts to an abuse of the process of law and is therefore liable to be rejected. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. The principal question that arises for consideration in the present case is whether the learned revisional court was justified in setting aside the order passed by the learned S.D.M., Chatrapur in exercise of powers under Section 133 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the dispute pertains to private land and does not involve any public nuisance or unlawful obstruction affecting the public at large. 12. A perusal of Section 133 Cr.P.C. shows that an Executive Magistrate, upon receiving a police report or other information and upon taking such evidence as may be considered necessary, may make a conditional order where he considers that any unlawful obstruction or nuisance should be removed from any public place. The provision reads as follows: Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Jul-2026 18:24:41 Signature Not Verified Page 8 “133. 12. A perusal of Section 133 Cr.P.C. shows that an Executive Magistrate, upon receiving a police report or other information and upon taking such evidence as may be considered necessary, may make a conditional order where he considers that any unlawful obstruction or nuisance should be removed from any public place. The provision reads as follows: Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Jul-2026 18:24:41 Signature Not Verified Page 8 “133. Conditional order for removal of nuisance.—(1) Whenever a District Magistrate or a Sub-Divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government, on receiving the report of a police officer or other information and on taking such evidence (if any) as he thinks fit, considers— (a) that any unlawful obstruction or nuisance should be removed from any public place or from any way, river or channel which is or may be lawfully used by the public; or (b) that the conduct of any trade or occupation, or the keeping of any goods or merchandise, is injurious to the health or physical comfort of the community, and that in consequence such trade or occupation should be prohibited or regulated or such goods or merchandise should be removed or the keeping thereof regulated; or (c) that the construction of any building, or, the disposal of any substance, as is likely to occasion conflagration or explosion, should be prevented or stopped; or (d) that any building, tent or structure, or any tree is in such a condition that it is likely to fall and thereby cause injury to persons living or carrying on business in the neighbourhood or passing by, and that in consequence the removal, repair or support of such building, tent or structure, or the removal or support of such tree, is necessary; or (e) that any tank, well or excavation adjacent to any such way or public place should be fenced in such manner as to prevent danger arising to the public; or (f) that any dangerous animal should be destroyed, confined or otherwise disposed of, such Magistrate may make a conditional order requiring the person causing such obstruction or nuisance, or carrying on such trade or occupation, or keeping any Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Jul-2026 18:24:41 Signature Not Verified Page 9 such goods or merchandise, or owning, possessing or controlling such building, tent, structure, substance, tank, well or excavation, or owning or possessing such animal or tree, within a time to be fixed in the order— (i) to remove such obstruction or nuisance; or (ii) to desist from carrying on, or to remove or regulate in such manner as may be directed, such trade or occupation, or to remove such goods or merchandise, or to regulate the keeping thereof in such manner as may be directed; or (iii) to prevent or stop the construction of such building, or to alter the disposal of such substance; or (iv) to remove, repair or support such building, tent or structure, or to remove or support such trees; or (v) to fence such tank, well or excavation; or (vi) to destroy, confine or dispose of such dangerous animal in the manner provided in the said order; or, if he objects so to do, to appear before himself or some other Executive Magistrate subordinate to him at a time and place to be fixed by the order, and show cause, in the manner hereinafter provided, why the order should not be made absolute. (2) No order duly made by a Magistrate under this section shall be called in question in any civil court. Explanation.—A “public place” includes also property belonging to the State, camping grounds and grounds left unoccupied for sanitary or recreative purposes.” 13. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the power under Section 133 Cr.P.C. is intended to provide a speedy and summary remedy in cases involving public nuisance or conditions affecting public safety and convenience. It is framed to safeguard community interests and is not ordinarily intended for adjudication of private disputes. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Jul-2026 18:24:41 Signature Not Verified Page 10 14. The scope of Section 133 Cr.P.C. was discussed by the Supreme Court in Kachrulal Bhagirath Agrawal v. State of Maharashtra1, wherein it was observed that the jurisdiction under Section 133 Cr.P.C. is intended to deal with cases of public nuisance affecting the community at large and is not to be invoked for adjudication of private disputes. 15. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the 11 KV electric line has been in existence since the period of the erstwhile OSEB and supplies electricity to the rural areas of Chatrapur. It is also borne out from the record that the petitioner acquired the land subsequent to the installation of the said line. 16. The grievance raised before the learned S.D.M. was that the existence of the electric line and pole caused inconvenience in construction activities over the land and was also stated to pose a safety concern for persons residing in or passing through the locality. The S.D.M., on consideration of the materials placed before him, directed removal of the line treating the situation as one affecting public safety. 17. The revisional court, while allowing the revision, held that the land in question being private in nature, the proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. were not maintainable and that the learned S.D.M. had exceeded jurisdiction in directing removal of the 11 KV line. On that premise, the order was set aside as illegal and without jurisdiction. 1 2005 (9) SCC 36. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Jul-2026 18:24:41 Signature Not Verified Page 11 18. The question that arises is whether the material on record discloses a condition satisfying the requirements of Section 133 Cr.P.C., namely, the existence of a public nuisance or a reasonable apprehension of danger affecting the public at large. 19. In the considered view of this Court, apart from general assertions regarding safety concerns, the record does not disclose any specific material indicating a reasonable likelihood of public harm so as to justify invocation of the summary jurisdiction under Section 133 Cr.P.C. The installation in question is an old electrical feeder which has been in existence for several decades and forms part of the distribution network supplying electricity to the surrounding rural areas. The surrounding circumstances further indicate that the dispute has primarily arisen in the context of the petitioner's proposed use and enjoyment of the land for residential purposes after acquisition of the property with the existing electrical line already in place. 20. It is also relevant that the feasibility of shifting the line was examined by the Grievance Redressal Forum, Berhampur, which, upon spot verification, found that there was no scope for shifting the line due to Right of Way constraints and the existing configuration of the feeder. 21. Issues relating to the shifting and alteration of electrical lines, including questions of Right of Way and technical feasibility, are ordinarily governed by the statutory framework under the Electricity Act, 2003, read with the applicable regulations and, where applicable, the provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Such matters Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Jul-2026 18:24:41 Signature Not Verified Page 12 generally fall within the domain of the competent technical and regulatory authorities, which are better equipped to assess infrastructural feasibility and safety standards. 22. In such circumstances, the remedy under Section 133 Cr.P.C., being summary and preventive in nature, cannot be invoked as a substitute for adjudication of issues falling within the domain of the special statutory framework where the grievance does not disclose a clear case of public nuisance or an unlawful obstruction affecting the community at large. The jurisdiction under Section 133 Cr.P.C. is intended to address emergent situations involving public safety or convenience and not to resolve essentially private disputes relating to use and enjoyment of property. V. CONCLUSION: 23. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the materials on record do not disclose the existence of a public nuisance or a reasonable apprehension of danger affecting the public at large so as to justify invocation of Section 133 Cr.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was, therefore, justified in holding that the proceeding was not maintainable. 24. The impugned revisional order does not suffer from any illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the CRLMC, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Jul-2026 18:24:41 Page 13 25. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 25th June, 2026 CUTTACK