Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22903 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 433 of 2025 Revisionist :- Dinesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Subhash Chandra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Subhash Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for revisionist as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 2. By means of the present revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. (Now Section 438/442 B.N.S.s.) a the revisionist has assailed the order dated 24.03.2025 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Sirauli, Gauspur, District - Barabanki in proceedings Under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. 3. It has been submitted that the private respondents had made a complaint under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. alleging that the revisionist has blocked the public way of the private respondents due to which the ingress from the property has been blocked and amounts to public nuisance. The Sub- Divisional Magistrate on receipt of the said objection had called for a police report from which it was found that the said road was in fact being used by complainant 6 to 7 months prior and was in use by the complainants but the revisionist has constructed a wall on majority of the said area leaving passage of 02 ft. for animals and has according blocked the said road. It was further reported with regard to the said dispute, a complaint was filed by the police and proceedings under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. was carried out and the said road was opened for public use but it seems that after the said proceedings the revisionist has again blocked the said road due to which application under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. was moved before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The revisionist was issued notices and he put in appearance. It was stated that the revisionist and the private respondents are real brothers and it is common area of 'Sahan' which is used by the revisionist as well as private respondents and a preliminary objection was raised that the road which is alleged to be a public-way is in fact a private way and consequelty proceedings under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. would not be maintainable and no restraining order could have been passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 133 of Cr.P.C.. 4. 4. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate on the objection being raised had also asked a report from the revenue authorities. Considering the report of the revenue authorities as well as police it was found that the said road was in fact a public way which was being used by all the persons apart from the complainant and consequently he found that the objection raised by the complainant was in fact incorrect and not made out and even from the site plan it was clear that the said road was being used by the public. 5. It was further taken on account the fact that revisionist has filed a civil suit being Civil Suit No. 610/2024 before the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Court No. 13, Barabanki but no injunction has been granted in his favour and the proceedings are still pending before the civil Court. It was further found that the substantial portion of the road has been blocked by bricks and wire and the report of the Revenue Inspector and the police clearly established the said fact and even from the photographs it was clear that the said road has been blocked by the revisionist. 6. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the SDM has not found the objections raised by the revisionist to be valid and rejected the same confirming the interim order and restraining the revisionist from making any obstructions on the said road. The revisionist has raised the same objection before this Court relating to the fact that the said road is a private road and not public road and consequelty proceedings under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. were not maintainable. 7. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand has opposed the revision. He has submitted that proceedings under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. are summary proceedings and the SDM after obtaining reports from the revenue authorities as well as police has recorded a finding with regard to the fact that the said road was in fact a public road on which the obstructions made by the revisionist amounted to public nuisance and consequently there was no infirmity in the proceedings initiated under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. 8. I have heard rival contentions and perused the record. It is noticed that on the allegations of the complainant with regard to common passage a complaint was made. The objection of the revisionist was duly looked into by the SDM inasmuch as he has called for reports from the police as well as revenue authorities from which it was clearly established that common passage was used by the public at large and was not a private road. It was further recorded that proceedings under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. were also initiated between the parties and the matter was settled after removal of the said encroachment but soon thereafter the revisionist has again raised the said encroachment. It is further observed that the proceedings under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. are summary proceedings and in case the revisionist has any grievance with regard to his rights, the same can be adequately adjudicated in the Civil Court of the competent jurisdiction. In this regard, it is noticed that a civil suit has already been preferred by the revisionist being Civil Suit No. 610/2024 which is pending consideration. 9. From the aforesaid, this Court finds that the SDM has complied with the procedure under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. and has considered all the aspects of the matter and it is only after receiving adequate evidence and considering the same the impugned order has been passed. This Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order, the present criminal revision is bereft of merits and is hereby dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 23.4.2025 Ravi/ Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench