Existence of civil dispute does not bar preventive proceedings to remove dangerous structures for public safety.

Three connected petitions arose out of the same proceedings initiated under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ("BNSS"), challenging the order dated 14.03.2026 passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in Criminal Revision Nos. 17/2026, 19/2026 and 20/2026, affirming the order dated 16.01.2026 of the City Magistrate, Sagar directing vacation of premises bearing House No. 325/263/1, Loharwali Gali, Bariyaghat, Sagar, on the ground that the structure was dilapidated, dangerous and likely to cause public nuisance and danger to life

The petitioners claimed to be lawful occupants/tenants of different portions and alleged that the proceedings were initiated at the instance of Shri Digambar Jain Sagroday Teerth Trust in collusion with the Municipal Corporation, to evict them under the guise of public safety and to settle a civil dispute over title and tenancy

The petitioners earlier approached this Court in W.P. No. 1223/2026, which relegated them to the revisional remedy with interim protection; the revisional Court subsequently affirmed the Magistrate's order

The respondents contended that the building was over 100 years old, that notices under Sections 309 and 310 of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 issued to the Trust went unheeded, and that reports of the Structural Engineer, PWD Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsildar and Municipal Corporation uniformly found the structure unfit for human habitation and dangerous to the public, as it abutted a busy public road

1. Whether the proceedings under Section 152 BNSS constituted a bona fide exercise of preventive jurisdiction for removal of public nuisance and imminent danger, or a colourable exercise intended to evict the petitioners on account of a subsisting civil dispute regarding title/tenancy

2. Whether the impugned orders were passed in violation of Section 152 BNSS and the principles of natural justice, having regard to unilateral expert reports and the manner of adjudication

3. Whether the concurrent findings of the City Magistrate and the Revisional Court warranted interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS

Section 528 BNSS, 2023 (inherent powers of the High Court, analogous to Section 482 CrPC), holding that its scope is limited and interference is justified only where impugned orders disclose patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error, or abuse of the process of law

Section 152 BNSS, 2023 (analogous to Section 133 CrPC) was construed as conferring jurisdiction that is preventive in nature, intended to remove imminent danger and public nuisance, without adjudicating ownership or tenancy rights

Sections 309 and 310 of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, under which notices regarding the dangerous structure were issued to the Trust

The pendency of civil litigation concerning title or tenancy does not denude the competent statutory authority of its power to take preventive measures where a structure is found dangerous and poses a threat to public safety

A challenge founded merely on disputing the correctness of expert reports cannot sustain inherent jurisdiction in the face of concurrent findings of fact recorded on technical evidence

Applying Section 528 BNSS to the concurrent findings below, the Court held that the jurisdiction exercised by the City Magistrate under Section 152 BNSS was preventive, and the material relied upon — reports of the Structural Engineer, PWD, Tehsildar and Municipal Corporation — consistently opined that the century-old structure was structurally weak, unsafe for habitation and liable to collapse, endangering both occupants and the general public using the adjoining busy road

The City Magistrate had recorded detailed findings and the Revisional Court had independently reappreciated the material, thereby satisfying the requisite standard of scrutiny

On Issue 1, the Court reasoned that the mere existence of civil litigation over title or tenancy does not strip the statutory authority of its preventive power, since the impugned proceedings neither adjudicated ownership nor tenancy rights and were confined to preventing public nuisance and safeguarding human life; the petitioners' civil remedies remained open

On Issue 2, the natural justice plea failed because the record demonstrated that the petitioners filed objections, pursued writ proceedings, and availed the statutory revision in which their submissions were considered

On Issue 3, the Court held that mere disagreement with expert reports does not justify inherent jurisdiction, and no patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error or abuse of process was demonstrated, as the orders were supported by contemporaneous inspection reports, expert opinions and the statutory scheme governing removal of dangerous structures

Finding no ground to interfere with the order dated 16.01.2026 of the City Magistrate, Sagar, or the revisional orders dated 14.03.2026 of the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, the Court dismissed M.Cr.C. Nos. 14969/2026, 13911/2026 and 14795/2026 and vacated all interim orders operating in the matters

Questions of title and tenancy remained open for adjudication before the competent civil forum