1 2026:CGHC:8050 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2501 of 2019 Mohit Kumar Behra S/o Shri Chandan Behra Aged About 45 Years R/o Nichepara Dhramjaygarh, Police Station and Tahsil Dharamjaygarh, Civil and Revenue District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. Narendra Singh S/o Shri Narayan Singh R/o Nichepara Dhramjaygarh, Police Station and Tahsil Dharamjaygarh, Civil and Revenue District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Rishi Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No.2/State : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Patel, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. Sunil Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Rishi Sahu, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.1 as well as Ms. Palak Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent No.2/State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- “It is therefore, prayed that the Revision petition may kindly be allowed and the order impugned dated PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.02.19 10:27:15 +0530 2 27.10.2018 passed in Criminal Revision No.09/2018 may kindly be set aside and the appropriate order for removal of nuisance may kindly be passed by allowing the application under Section 133 Cr.P.C. filed by petitioner, in the interest of Justice.” 3. The prosecution story, in short, is that the petitioner filed an application under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dharamjaygarh on 25.08.2014, seeking removal of nuisance caused by respondent No. 1. The petitioner’s house is situated at Plot No. 148, area 29 Dismil, where he resides with his family. Adjacent to his house lies an open land belonging to respondent No. 1. The respondent dug a large pit/chamber in the said land for collection of raw/waste material, which resulted in stagnation of water and breeding of mosquitoes, thereby creating nuisance. Further, a Sagon (teak) tree situated near the boundary wall of the petitioner’s house posed a threat to the structure, as its roots could damage the wall and its leaves were regularly falling into the petitioner’s courtyard. The learned Magistrate registered the case on 08.10.2014, called for a report from the concerned Revenue Officer, and granted time to respondent No. 1 to file a reply. After receiving the report and reply, the matter was fixed for recording of evidence. The Revenue Inspector’s report (R.I. Prativedan) clearly indicates that respondent No. 1 had dug a large chamber near the petitioner’s boundary wall, which was causing nuisance and was capable of being removed. 4. The learned Magistrate, however, dismissed the application vide order dated 18.09.2017 on the ground that the land in question was recorded in the name of Smt. Malti Bai W/o Chandan, and the applicant’s/petitioner’s name was not reflected in the revenue records. The petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Court of Sessions challenging the order dated 3 18.09.2017 and prayed for appropriate directions for removal of the nuisance caused by respondent No. 1. However, the learned Revisional Court, without properly considering the Revenue Inspector’s report and other material available on record, held that the petitioner’s case did not fall within the purview of Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and dismissed the revision petition vide order dated 27.10.2018. Hence, the present petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed an application under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 along with relevant documents demonstrating that the respondent No.1 created nuisance near the petitioner’s house, which has caused and continues to cause damage to the boundary wall of the petitioner. The learned Sessions Court committed an error of law in dismissing the revision petition by holding that the application under Section 133 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable, despite the admitted position that the respondent No.1 had dug a chamber and collected raw/waste material, thereby creating nuisance. The learned Revisional Court failed to consider that the Revenue Inspector’s report clearly establishes that the respondent No.1 planted/maintained a Sagon (teak) tree adjacent to the petitioner’s boundary wall, the leaves of which fall into the petitioner’s premises and whose roots are likely to damage the boundary wall. Even from the reply filed by the respondent No.1, it is evident that waste material was being collected near the petitioner’s residence, resulting in breeding of mosquitoes, which poses a serious health hazard and constitutes a public nuisance. The learned Magistrate and the learned Revisional Court failed to appreciate that the property is recorded in the name of Smt. Malti Behra, who is the mother of the petitioner. The petitioner, being a resident of the said house, is fully entitled to file an application under Section 133 4 Cr.P.C. for removal of nuisance affecting his residence. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 as well as State oppose the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for Respondent No.1 further submits that the dispute relates to private land adjacent to petitioner’s house. The alleged nuisance affects only the petitioner, not the general public. The report of the Revenue Inspector confirms that no public nuisance is present there. Section 133 Cr.P.C. applies only when the nuisance affects the public at large, as defined under Section 268 IPC. As such, the Trial Court rightly dismissed the petition/application, and the Revisional Court correctly affirmed the same, therefore, there is no any illegality and infirmity or any jurisdictional error while passing the impugned order, and therefore, the present petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. From perusal of the documents available on record and from the order/judgment passed by the Trial Court as well as Revisional Court, it transpires that Section 133 Cr.P.C. empowers the Magistrate to remove public nuisance, i.e., a nuisance affecting the public at large. Section 268 IPC defines public nuisance as an act causing common injury, danger, or annoyance to the public or those using public rights. In the present case, the alleged pit and tree affect only the petitioner. There is no evidence available on record which shows that it affects the public at large. The Revenue Inspector’s report supports that the alleged act does not constitute public nuisance. The order of the Sub-Divisional 5 Magistrate dated 18.09.2017 is therefore, justified and legal. The Revisional Court correctly dismissed the revision petition. No exceptional circumstances exists to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the instant petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 9. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and from perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court as well as Revisional Court, I am of the view that both the Sub- ordinates Courts have not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits, liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti