Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 146621 (ALL)

ANIL KUMAR MISHRA v. SPECIAL JUDGE PC ACT FIRST LUCKNOW A.S.J. AND ORS.

CRLP/2014/2019 · 2025-08-19

Subhash Vidyarthi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48538 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2014 of 2019 Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Mishra Respondent :- Special Judge Pc Act First Lucknow A.S.J. And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Yadav,Puneet Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Kamlesh Singh Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Shri Brijesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Jayant Kumar Tomar, learned A.G.A.-I for the State, Shri Satish Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Shri Kamlesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents No.4 & 5 and perused the record. 2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the validity of an order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the learned Additional City Magistrate (fifth), Lucknow in Case No.29/38/2015, under Section 133 Cr.P.C. The petitioner had challenged the aforesaid order by filing Criminal Revision No.150 of 2016 which has been dismissed by means of an judgment and order dated 14.01.2019 passed by learned Special Judge (PC Act-I), Lucknow and the petitioner has challenged the validity of the revisional order also. 3. The aforesaid proceedings were instituted on the basis of a report submitted by the S.H.O. of Police Station Ghazipur, stating that the respondents No.4 & 5 have obstructed public passage. Initially a conditional order was passed under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. on 07.07.2007. The respondents No.4 & 5 have filed the objections denying the existence of any public passage and they submitted that a civil suit regarding the property in dispute was pending in the civil court. The learned Magistrate found that the respondents No.4 & 5 have purchased different parts of land bearing Khasra No.75 situated in Village Shiekpur Kasaila, Sanjay Gandhi Puram, Faizabad Road, P.S. Ghazipur, Lucknow through different sale deeds through its tenure holder Shri P.D. Joshi. Although it was mentioned in the sale deed that a passage existed towards each of the land purchased by the respondents, no passage was recorded in the revenue records. The Magistrate found that the objector / complainant could not establish the distance of any public passage and, accordingly, the proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. were dropped. 4. The revisional court has also held that land bearing Khasra No.75 belongs to a particular individual and it is not the property of Nagar Nigam or any public body. No rasta existed on land bearing Khasra No.75 as per the government records. 5. By assailing validity of both the aforesaid orders, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that under Section 133(1)(a) Cr.P.C. provides for removal of any unlawful obstruction or passage from any public place or from any way, river or channel which is or may be lawfully used by the public. He has further submitted that the words "any way" contained under Section 133(1)(a) Cr.P.C. are of wide implication and it would include any public passage as well. 6. The words "any way" cannot be read in isolation and these words are to be read along with the entire sub-section which provides that any unlawful obstruction or nuisance may be removed from any public place or from any way, river or channel which is or may be lawfully used by the public. Firstly, the words "any way" should be interpreted as Ejusdem Generis with the words public place, river or channel and the words "any way" would obviously mean the way which can be used as of right by the members of the public which is further clarified by the express use of the word "which is or may be lawfully used by the public". The petitioner could not establish that the public at large has a legal right of way over the portion of land bearing Khasra No.75 situated in Village Shiekpur Kasaila, Sanjay Gandhi Puram, P.S. Ghazipur, Lucknow. 7. In these circumstances, there is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the learned Additional City Magistrate (fifth), Lucknow in Case No.29/38/2015, under Section 133 Cr.P.C. as well as the order dated 14.01.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, PC Act-I, Lucknow in Criminal Revision No.150 of 2016. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 S. Shivhare Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench