HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1189 of 2025 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard Sri Lavkush Kumar Bhatt, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Gorakh Nath Shukla, learned Counsel for the private respondent, and Sri K.K. Gupta, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 17.12.2024, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Farrukhabad, in Criminal Revision No. 129 of 2024 (Guddi Devi vs. Bablu and others) (Annexure No. 1 to this petition), as well as the impugned order dated 20.06.2024, passed by respondent no. 2, i.e., the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, District Farrukhabad, in Case No. 14748 of 2019 (Guddi Devi vs. Bablu and another), under Section 133(1) Cr.P.C. (Annexure No. 2 to this petition). The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of a direction to respondent nos. 2 and 3 to take appropriate steps for removal of the encroachment made by respondent nos. 4 and 5 over the public passage within such stipulated period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had moved an application on 22.4.2016 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, District Farrukhabad, alleging that a five-foot-wide public passage passing in front of his house had been encroached upon by the respondents by constructing a toilet, thereby occupying three feet of the road and leaving only two feet available for passage. On the basis of the said application, proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. were initiated, and an order was passed on 30.7.2016 in Case No.6 of 2016. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate observed that the alleged construction had not encroached upon Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Lavkush Kumar Bhatt Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Gorakh Nath Shukla Smt. Guddi Devi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) the public passage and that there was no public obstruction. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.7.2016, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 6 of 2018 (Guddi Devi vs. Bablu and others). The said order was set aside by the revisional court vide order dated 21.12.2018 and the matter was remanded back with certain observations. It was observed that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate had failed to consider the report submitted by the Junior Engineer and had not followed the due procedure of summoning him for cross-examination as mandated under Section 139 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, when the matter was reheard by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate in Case No.14748 of 2019 (Guddi Devi vs. Bablu and another), the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, despite the directions issued in Criminal Revision No. 6 of 2018, again passed an order observing that there was no construction upon the public passage. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, in order to extend undue benefit to the respondents, deliberately ignored the report submitted by the Junior Engineer and passed the impugned order in utter violation of the directions of the revisional court. It was further submitted that the order dated 26.2.2024 passed in Case No.14748 of 2019 is patently illegal, having been passed without complying with the directions issued in Criminal Revision No.6 of 2018. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that the spot was personally inspected by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who observed that no construction was found during such inspection. It was further submitted that a categorical finding had been recorded that the alleged construction was not causing any obstruction to the public passage, and therefore, the findings do not suffer from any perversity. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 26.02.2024 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, District Farrukhabad. 6. It is apparent that specific observations were made by the Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 6 of 2018, wherein it was noted that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate had neither considered the report submitted by the Junior Engineer nor taken any steps to summon him for recording his statement. In view of these observations, the order dated 30.7.2016 was set aside in criminal revision, and the matter was remanded with a direction to pass a fresh order in light of the observations made in the A227 No. 1189 of 2025 2 revision. However, the impugned order dated 26.2.2024 clearly reflects that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, without complying with the directions issued in Criminal Revision No.6 of 2018, has passed the order solely on the basis of his personal inspection. Prima facie, the order appears to have been passed in deliberate disregard of the directions of the revisional court. 7. Accordingly, the order dated 26.2.2024 is unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. The same is hereby set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, District Farrukhabad, is directed to restore the proceedings in Case No.14748 of 2019 (Guddi Devi vs. Bablu and another) and to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with the directions issued in Criminal Revision No.6 of 2018, as well as in compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 133 Cr.P.C. It is further observed that in the event of failure to comply with the directions issued in Criminal Revision No. 6 of 2018, as well as in this order, such conduct shall be viewed seriously and may amount to contempt, making the concerned authority liable to face appropriate legal consequences. May 5, 2026 Mukesh A227 No. 1189 of 2025 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad