Dismissed

Om Vir Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 May 2018CRLP/6160/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash an order setting aside an F.M.Q. under Section 133 Cr.P.C. The court held that nuisance caused to an individual or family, not the general public, does not constitute public nuisance warranting Section 133 intervention.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the order dated 04.03.2013 setting aside the FMQ dated 07.12.2012 rejected; writ petition dismissed.

Om Vir Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6160 of 2013

¶3

Petitioner :- Om Vir Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Dhaka Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,A.C. Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 04.03.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Ghaziabad in Criminal Revision No. 11 of 2013 (Vinod Kumar v. State of U.P.), District - Ghaziabad, whereby the revision of the revisionist was allowed and the impugned order dated 07.12.2012 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Modinagar under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') was set aside.

¶7

Succinctly, facts of the case are that petitioner Om Vir Singh and respondent no. 2 Vinod Kumar are neighbours. Their houses are adjacent to each other. Respondent no. 2 Vinod Kumar had established a powerloom factory, due to which, nuisance is caused to the petitioner.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that due to the powerloom factory, nuisance has not only been caused to the petitioner, but also to other people residing nearby. This is a case of public nuisance. U.P. Pollution Control Board, Ghaziabad has reported that due to powerloom factory, sound pollution of intensity 71.2 decibels is created, which is above the prescribed limit.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. contended that there is no illegality or infirmity passed by the revisional court.

¶10

It is admitted fact that powerloom factory has not been established on any public place. Learned revisional court in its order held that the aforesaid factory is running from the year 1998, while the petitioner started residing in that area since 2004. In such circumstances, just because nuisance is caused only to the petitioner and his family members, exercise of power under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. would be wholly

¶11

unjustified. Nuisance caused to an individual person or family does not fall under the category of 'public nuisance' and thus, it would not attract the ingredients of Section 133 Cr.P.C.

¶12

In view of above, I am of the considered opinion that the finding of the revisional court is based on evidence and material on record and not perverse. I find no illegality in the order passed by the court below so as to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.

¶13

Resultantly, the instant writ petition, which sans merit, is dismissed .

¶14

Order Date :- 25.5.2018 I. Batabyal

Om Vir Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Vir Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prem Chandra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amar Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinay Pratap Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Manasvi Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Sharad Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Raj Kumar Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another