Dismissed¶15

Devendra Muni v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC9 Jul 2025A227/4364/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227; Section 203 Cr.P.C.; Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.; Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.; Section 268 IPC; Section 290 Public Nuisance Act; Noise Pollution Act; loudspeaker noise pollution; public nuisance; complaint dismissal; summoning of accused; criminal revision; judicial magistrate Shamli; Kairana; writ petition dismissed; suo motu action by officers; Writ-C No. 1216 of 2019 Sushil Chandra Srivastava; Devendra Muni v. State of U.P.; Allahabad High Court 2025:AHC:108947.

What did the court decide?

There is no illegality in the orders impugned; the matter requires no interference by this Court. ¶14

Devendra Muni vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:108947

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4364 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Devendra Muni Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nagendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Nagendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following relief:

¶9

"(1) To issue a direction for setting aside the impugned order dated 06.02.2025 passed by District and Session Judge, Shamli, dismissing the Criminal Revision No. 46 of 2024 (Devendra Muni vs. State of U.P. and others) and confirming the order dated 13.5.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Shamli in Complaint Case No. 9621 of 2023 (Devendra Muni vs. Sanjay and others) were by the complaint case of the petitioner has been dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C be set aside and quashed and the complaint case of the petitioner be allowed and the accused respondent no. 2 to 6 be summoned under Section 268 IPC and section 290 of Public Nuisance Act and be prosecuted in accordance with law and the accused respondent no. 2 to 6 be summon/punish under Section 268 IPC and section 290 of Public Nuisance Act."

¶10

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C before the Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Kairana, Shamli on 20.07.2020 which was treated as a complaint case. After recording the statement of the petitioner/complainant and the witnesses on oath under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the complaint was rejected on 13.5.2024 by the learned Magistrate under Section 203 Cr.P.C.

¶11

Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/complainant preferred a criminal revision before the District and Sessions Judge, Shamli which was also rejected vide order dated 06.02.2025 without considering the material available on record.

¶12

The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner being a villager objected for the use of loudspeaker with a high volume which enhanced the noise pollution and created public nuisance. The petitioner initiated this task in pursuance to the judgement and order of this Court in PIL filed by the petitioner i.e. Writ–C No. 1216 of 2019 (Sushil Chandra Srivastava and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others). But the learned Revisional Court had found that there were several contradictions in the statement of the first informant and witness CW-1 Vikrant recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and rejected the complaint lodged by the petitioner, though, there was sufficient material on record to proceed against the respondentaccused.

¶13

From the perusal of records and the decision rendered in the PIL referred above, it clearly authorizes the concerned officers to take appropriate action against any offender who violates the terms of the Rules under the Noise Pollution Act.

¶14

Accordingly, it is the duty of the officer concerned to take appropriate action suo moto against the respondent/accused. There is no illegality in the order impugned. Matter requires no interference.

¶15

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶16

Order Date :- 9.7.2025 Puspendra

¶17

Digitally signed by :- PUSPENDRA NARAYAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Devendra Muni v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Muni v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Brijesh Gaurd vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Meera Bind and Another vs Deepak Bind

Veer Singh vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Nisha (Minor) and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Raju and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Shivani (Corpus) vs State of U.P. and 3 Others