Existence of public nuisance on a public pathway justifies invocation of Section 133 CrPC despite claims of civil dispute.

The respondents filed an application under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. alleging that the petitioner obstructed a public pathway (Survey No. 250) leading to their residence and a temple by lashing bricks and rubble.

Multiple rounds of litigation occurred: the SDM initially rejected the application in 2007 and 2009, but the Revisional Court remanded the matter twice for fresh adjudication.

Following the second remand, the SDM called for a Patwari report under Section 139 Cr.P.C., which confirmed illegal encroachment and public nuisance.

Consequently, the SDM allowed the respondent's application on 04.05.2018, ordering removal of the obstruction.

The petitioner challenged this before the Sessions Court, which dismissed the revision on 28.03.2019, leading to the current petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

1. Whether the dispute was purely civil in nature (title/easement), thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C.

2. Whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding public nuisance warranted interference under the inherent jurisdiction of Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The court applied Section 133 of the Cr.P.C., which provides a summary remedy for the removal of unlawful obstructions from public places or ways to address public nuisance.

It also considered Section 139 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the power of the Magistrate to direct local investigation.

Regarding the scope of judicial review, the court applied the settled principle that inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process or secure justice, and not as an appellate power to re-appreciate evidence.

The court also noted *Vasant Manga Nikumba v. Baburao Bhikanna Naidu*, which distinguishes between private disputes and public nuisance.

The petitioner argued the matter was a private civil dispute involving easementary rights and noted that previous applications had been dismissed.

However, the High Court observed that the Magistrate’s current order was based on a specific Patwari report which identified the obstruction as being on a public pathway affecting the community.

The Court reasoned that the mere existence of a civil dispute does not oust Section 133 jurisdiction if the material evidence discloses an obstruction in a public way.

Since the lower court followed the mandatory procedures of Sections 133 to 138 Cr.P.C. upon remand and recorded categorical findings based on evidence, there was no "manifest illegality" or "perversity".

The High Court declined to re-examine factual findings concurrently held by two lower courts.

The Court affirmed that the findings of the Magistrate and the Revisional Court were based on a proper appreciation of evidence and did not constitute an abuse of the process of law.

The order for removal of the obstruction stands.