Dinesh Kumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:54355
1 MCRC-14969-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
th
ON THE 8 OF JULY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14969 of 2026
DINESH KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shivnarayan Verma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Guru Prasanna Singh Parihar - Advocate for respondent No.1.
Shri Devendra Shukla - P.L. for the respondent/State.
Shri Kunal Thakre - Advocate for respondent No.2
WITH
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 13911 of 2026
RUPESH SONI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Dharmendra Soni - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Guru Prasanna Parihar with Shri Devendra Shukla - Advocate for respondent
No.1.
Shri Kunal Thakre - Advocate for respondent No.2.
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14795 of 2026
DESH BHUSHAN JAIN
Versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, SAGAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arvind Soni - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Guru Prasanna Sing Parihar - Advocate for respondent No.1.
Shri Kunal Thakre - Advocate for respondent No.2.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH
SALUJA
Signing time: 28-07-2026
10:48:42

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:54355
2 MCRC-14969-2026
Shri Devendra Shukla - P.L. for the respondent/State.

ORDER
Since all the three petitions arise out of the same proceedings initiated under
Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the
th
order dated 14.03.2026 passed by the learned 7 Additional Sessions Judge,
Sagar in Criminal Revision Nos.17/2026, 19/2026 and 20/2026 affirming the
order dated 16.01.2026 passed by the learned City Magistrate, Sagar in Case
No.02/Criminal/Section 152 BNSS/2025, involve identical questions of fact and
law and are founded upon substantially similar grounds, they were heard
analogously and are being decided by this common order. For the sake of
convenience, the facts are being referred to from M.Cr.C. No.14969/2026.
2. The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking
quashment of the revisional order dated 14.03.2026 as well as the order dated
16.01.2026 passed by the learned City Magistrate under Section 152 BNSS
directing vacation of premises bearing House No.325/263/1 situated at Loharwali
Gali, Bariyaghat, Sagar, on the ground that the structure was found to be
dilapidated, dangerous and likely to cause public nuisance and danger to life. The
petitioners claim to be occupants/tenants of different portions of the said premises.
It is their case that the proceedings under Section 152 BNSS were initiated at the
instance of Shri Digambar Jain Sagroday Teerth Trust in collusion with the
Municipal Corporation with the sole object of evicting the petitioners from the
premises under the guise of public safety. It has also been pleaded that this Court,
while disposing of W.P. No.1223/2026, had relegated the parties to avail the
revisional remedy and granted interim protection, but the revisional Court failed
to appreciate the grounds raised and mechanically affirmed the order of the City
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH
SALUJA
Signing time: 28-07-2026
10:48:42

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:54355
3 MCRC-14969-2026
Magistrate without independently examining the legality of the proceedings.

3. Learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that the impugned orders
are arbitrary, illegal and have been passed in violation of Section 152 BNSS and
the principles of natural justice. It was contended that the proceedings were
initiated without proper notice or opportunity of hearing and that the petitioners,
being lawful occupants/tenants, were sought to be evicted under the guise of
proceedings for removal of public nuisance. According to the petitioners, the
respondent Trust, in collusion with the Municipal Corporation, invoked Section
152 BNSS only to settle a civil dispute relating to title and tenancy, which is
impermissible in law.
4. It was further argued that the reports of the Structural Engineer, the
Municipal Corporation, the PWD and the Tehsildar were prepared unilaterally
without associating the petitioners and cannot be treated as conclusive proof that
the building is dangerous. The learned City Magistrate and the Revisional Court,
it was submitted, mechanically relied upon these reports without properly
considering the petitioners' objections, photographs and the pendency of civil
proceedings. It was therefore prayed that the impugned orders dated 16.01.2026
and 14.03.2026(of all three cases) be quashed in exercise of powers under Section
528 BNSS.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation as
well as the State opposed the petitions and submitted that the proceedings were
initiated not for resolving any civil dispute but solely to avert imminent danger to
human life. It is submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Municipal Corporation,
after inspection, found the building to be more than 100 years old, structurally
unsafe and liable to collapse at any time. Notices under Sections 309 and 310 of
the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 were issued to the Trust,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH
SALUJA
Signing time: 28-07-2026
10:48:42

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:54355
4 MCRC-14969-2026
but no remedial measures were taken. Consequently, proceedings under Section

152 BNSS were initiated before the City Magistrate. It is argued that reports of the
Structural Engineer, the Sub-Divisional Officer of the Public Works Department,
the Tehsildar and the Municipal Corporation uniformly recorded that the structure
was in an extremely dilapidated condition and unfit for human habitation. During
the proceedings, evidence was recorded, inspection reports and photographs were
exhibited, and the City Magistrate, after considering the material available on
record, rightly concluded that continuance of occupation posed serious danger to
the occupants as well as the general public using the adjoining public road.
Learned counsel further submitted that the revisional Court independently
examined the record and rightly affirmed the findings. Reliance has also been
placed upon the provisions of Section 310 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal
Corporation Act, 1956. It is contended that the proceedings neither determine title
nor tenancy rights, which remain open to be adjudicated before the competent
civil forum, and therefore no interference is called for in exercise of inherent
jurisdiction.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the
record, this Court finds that the jurisdiction exercised by the City Magistrate under
Section 152 BNSS is preventive in nature and is intended to remove imminent
danger and public nuisance. The material considered by the authorities includes
reports of the Structural Engineer, the Public Works Department, the Tehsildar
and the Municipal Corporation, all consistently opining that the building is more
than a century old, structurally weak, unsafe for habitation and likely to collapse,
thereby endangering not only its occupants but also the general public, as the
building abuts a busy public road. The learned City Magistrate has recorded
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH
SALUJA
Signing time: 28-07-2026
10:48:42

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:54355
5 MCRC-14969-2026
detailed findings on the basis of such material and the revisional Court has

independently reappreciated the same and affirmed those findings.
7. The principal contention of the petitioners that the proceedings are
intended to facilitate their eviction on account of an existing civil dispute cannot
be accepted. The existence of civil litigation regarding title or tenancy by itself
does not denude the competent authority of its statutory power to take preventive
measures where a structure is found to be dangerous and poses a threat to public
safety. The impugned proceedings do not adjudicate ownership or tenancy rights
and are confined to the limited object of preventing public nuisance and
safeguarding human life.
8. The plea regarding violation of principles of natural justice also does
not merit acceptance. The record demonstrates that after the preliminary order,
objections were filed, the petitioners approached this Court in writ proceedings,
thereafter availed the statutory revisional remedy pursuant to the liberty granted
by this Court, and the revisional Court considered their submissions before
affirming the order. Merely because the petitioners dispute the correctness of the
expert reports would not justify exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528
BNSS, particularly when concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by the
competent authorities on the basis of technical evidence.
9. The scope of interference under Section 528 BNSS is limited. Unless
the impugned orders disclose patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error or
abuse of the process of law, this Court would not substitute its own satisfaction for
that of the statutory authorities. In the present case, no such infirmity is
demonstrated. On the contrary, the impugned orders are supported by
contemporaneous inspection reports, expert opinions and the statutory scheme
governing removal of dangerous structures.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH
SALUJA
Signing time: 28-07-2026
10:48:42

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:54355
6 MCRC-14969-2026
10. Accordingly, this Court finds no ground warranting interference with

the order dated 16.01.2026 passed by the learned City Magistrate, Sagar or the
revisional orders dated 14.03.2026(of all three revisions) passed by the learned 7th
Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar.
11. Consequently, M.Cr.C. Nos.14969/2026, 13911/2026 and
14795/2026 are dismissed. Any interim order operating in these matters stands
vacated.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI)
JUDGE
Jasleen

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH
SALUJA
Signing time: 28-07-2026
10:48:42