- (1.) S. K. Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 and the learned A. G. A.
(2.) IT is a petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. challenging the prelimi nary order passed under Section 133, Cr. P. C. against the petitioner directing him to remove the wall constructed by him in plot No. 287 in village Singhpur on the basis that the public way running from the place in ques tion has been obstructed by the applicant. The applicant claims that the proceedings are of civil nature and that proceedings under Section 133, Cr. P. C. are wholly illegal. It has also been alleged that the Magistrate has not given a in reason in the impugned order as to why the report of Tahsildar made in favour of the applicant. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 has argued that in proceedings under Section 133, Cr. P. C. where, prima facie, the Magistrate finds that a public way has been obstructed he can issue notice to show cause as to why the obstruction should not be removed.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions, I am of the view that there is sufficient material on record on the basis of which the present notice has been issued. The law has to take its own course and the procedure followed by the learned Magistrate cannot be said to be an abuse of the due process of law. The petitioner has a remedy before the Civil Court where he can obtain an injunction in a suit for declaration of his title and for prohibition of injunction. The Magistrate has only issued notice to show cause and the applicant can appear before the Magistrate and show cause against the notice and the preliminary order may then be recalled. The notice issued to the applicant cannot be interfered within 'the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482, Cr. P. C. The petition is misconceived. It is, therefore, dismissed. The interim order is vacated. Petition dismissed. .;