HC to SDM: Procedural Lapses under CrPC will vitiate even a well intentioned Orders, Read Judgment

In a key procedural intervention, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court dismissed a petition challenging the Sub Divisional Magistrate’s (SDM) action against wheat fodder shops allegedly causing public nuisance in Agore village, Bhalwal. The matter spotlights recurring air pollution and potential encroachment on state land, raising urgent questions about administrative compliance and enforcement under Section 133 CrPC.

The controversy began when fifteen residents of Agore village approached authorities under Section 133 of the CrPC, seeking to restrain two local businessmen from unloading and storing wheat fodder in their shops. The petitioners alleged that repeated truck traffic and open storage of fodder created a public nuisance and air pollution. Respondents defended their decades-long seasonal business, claiming covered storage prevented any pollution, and questioned whether their shops were indeed on state or private land.

Earlier, the SDM had issued orders halting the activity, which were later set aside by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, due to procedural lapses, remanding the matter for proper compliance. The petitioners then rushed to the High Court, seeking to revive the original order.

The High Court rejected the petition, emphasizing that procedural compliance under Section 133 CrPC cannot be bypassed even if the petition’s intentions are “well meaning.” The bench observed that the petitioners should have approached the SDM to continue proceedings rather than seeking judicial shortcut. Highlighting administrative propriety, the Court noted, “if the provisions of Chapter (X) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973…are not followed in the manner as prescribed, then a final order, even if well meaning, cannot be allowed to stand.”

The Court upheld the Sessions Judge’s remand and directed the SDM to verify whether the shops and storage shed are on state land and, if confirmed, to remove any encroachment and issue fresh notices to all parties for resuming proceedings.

Case Title: Om Parkash & Ors. vs. Bodh Raj & Ors.

Case No.: Crm(M) No. 5/2020

Coram: Rahul Bharti

Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Anuj Dewan Raina

Advocate for the Respondent:Sr. Aag Monika , Kohli,

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com