C482/118/2014 of Raj Kishan Vs State Of Uttarakhand AND OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Misc. Application No.118 of 2014 (under Section 482 Cr.P.C.)

Raj Kishan

…………Applicant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & others ……..Respondents

Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)

1.Mr. B.S. Parihar, Advocate, present for the applicant.

2. Mr. S.S. Adhikari, learned Brief Holder, present for the State/respondent nos.1 & 2.

3. Mr. T.C. Agarwal, Advocate, present for the respondent no.3.

4. complaint was made by the respondent no.3 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate/respondent no.3 to the effect that Generator/DG set installed by the applicant is causing nuisance in the locality, which primarily is residential area. On this complaint, police report was called by the learned Magistrate. In compliance of the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, police report was submitted by the Police of Police Station Vikas Nagar and on the basis of the said report case was registered, being Case No.07 of 2012 under Section 133 Cr.P.C. The police report clearly states that generator is causing nuisance in the area. Consequently, an order was passed to remove the generator set from the area. Aggrieved, the applicant filed criminal revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun being Criminal Revision No.159 of 2013. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after calling for fresh report where again report dated 03.06.2013 was submitted wherein it was mentioned that new generator has been installed but it is not fully sound proof. Consequently, the revisional court itself gave finding that the

generator is causing nuisance. The applicant has no permission of the municipality or the pollution control board for installation of generator, consequently the revision of the applicant was dismissed vide order dated 05.02.2014. The applicant by means of this petitioner/application has challenged these orders before this Court.

5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the private respondent and perused the record. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds no anomaly in the orders of the learned courts below, as they are based on reports where there is categorical finding against the applicant as to the nuisance being caused. Therefore, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.

(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 19.05.2015