1 2025:CGHC:3703 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1442 of 2018 Sunil Kumar Bhansali S/o Late Shri Nakhalmal Bhansali Aged About 52 Years R/o Main Road, Nagri, Post Police Station Tahsil, Nagri, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, Through Proprietor Shri Mahavir Industries, Nagri, Main Road, Nagri, Post Police Station Tahsil Nagri, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus Mohan Prasad Upadhyay S/o Late Shri Vedan Prasad Upadhyay Aged About 65 Years R/o Nagri, Post Police Station Tahsil, Nagri, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent : None Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. None appeared on behalf of the respondent to press this petition when the case is called out for hearing. 2. By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.) the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 28.06.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2 Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) passed in Cr. Rev. No. 36/2017, arising out of the order dated 26.04.2017 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nagri in Criminal Case NO. 04/2017, whereby the learned SDM directed the applicant within 15 days to make arrangement to stop the dust which had been come from rice mill. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant filed a complaint on January 9, 2017, before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nagri, stating that the continuous dust emanating from the petitioner's rice mill, Shri Mahavir Industries, Nagri, was causing problems for all residents of the ward. He further submits that based on this application, a case was registered under Section 133 of the CrPC. After serving notice, the petitioner appeared in Court and filed a reply. Subsequently, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate ordered a report from the Pollution Control Board, Raipur, on January 30, 2017. Without obtaining a certificate from the Pollution Control Board, the case was fixed for evidence, and an order was passed on April 26, 2017, directing the applicant to make arrangements to stop the dust from the rice mill within 15 days. He also submits that A copy of the complete order sheet, including the order dated April 26, 2017, has been filed and marked as Annexure A/2. The applicant then filed a revision petition before the Sessions Court, challenging the legality and validity of the order dated April 26, 2017. A copy of the revision memo has been filed and marked as Annexure A/3. The revisional Court ultimately justified the order dated April 26, 2017, and dismissed the revision petition. 4. He further contended that according to the order sheets of the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, the magistrate directed the Pollution Control 3 Board to file a report. However, without waiting for the report, the magistrate received a reply on the next hearing date, April 10, 2017, and recorded witness statements in the petitioner's absence. The case was then fixed for a final order, violating the principle of natural justice. He further contended that the petitioner raised these concerns in the revision petition, but the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the petition without addressing these grounds. Instead, the judge relied on a report from the Block Medical OfÏcer, stating that dust from the petitioner's mill caused health issues for nearby residents. However, this justification ignores relevant legal provisions and settles principles of law. Since the ingredients of Section 133 of the CrPC are not attracted or infringed upon by the petitioner, the order is unsustainable in the eyes of the law, therefore, the said orders are liable to be set-aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the prayers and pleadings made in the petition along with the annexures annexed in the petition. 6. From the perusal of the records, it transpires that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's Court, in Case No. 04/17 under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Mohan Prasad Upadhyay vs. Sunil Kumar Bhansali, observed that the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner in the subordinate Court under Section 133 of the CrPC. The Court registered the case and ordered an investigation report from the Block Medical OfÏcer, Nagri, and the Revenue Inspector, Sihawa. The investigation report from the Block Medical OfÏcer, dated April 1, 2017, stated that the rice mill failed to properly manage dust, which could cause respiratory problems, infections, and allergies among 4 residents. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, based on the investigation report, found that the Mahavir Rice Mill's dust was adversely affecting the health of nearby residents. Consequently, the magistrate ordered the mill to completely stop emitting dust; otherwise, the mill would be sealed. Regarding Order No. 10654/54/32/88, dated December 7, 1988, published in the gazette, which stated that the rice mill was pollution-free as per the Environment Protection Board, the Court noted that the mill was located in a residential area, and the dust emitted was affecting the health of nearby residents, which was a different issue from environmental pollution. Therefore, the Sub- Divisional Magistrate's action under Section 133 of the CrPC was justified, and there is no basis for interfering with this order. Therefore, the impugned order of the revisional Court as well as trial Court are just and proper. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the impugned order passed by the revisional Court as well as learned trial Court, I am of the considered opinion that the order passed by the learned revisional Court as well as the learned trial Court does not call for any interference and accordingly, the present petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.01.22 17:21:41 +0530