SANDEEP MEHTA,J. - (1.) By way of the instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner Mohd. Gulzar has approached this Court for challenging the order dated 04.03.2015 passed by the learned SDM, Bap in Case No.05/2014 whereby, the learned Executive Magistrate accepted the complaint submitted by the respondents under Section 133 Cr.P.C. and directed closure of the leather business allegedly being run by the petitioner in a residential area as amounting to a public nuisance as well as the order dated 03.12.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Phalodi in revision whereby the order of the learned Magistrate was affirmed.
(2.) Learned counsel Shri D.L.R. Vyas urges that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is grossly perverse and amounts to a sheer abuse of process of law. The learned Magistrate failed to draw the mandatory preliminary order required under Section Section 133(1) Cr.P.C. Furthermore, the petitioner had denied the existence of any public nuisance or infringement of public right and, therefore, it was obligatory for the Executive Magistrate to have made an inquiry as per Sections 137 and 138 Cr.P.C. and to have recorded evidence of the parties before deciding the matter to finality. He further urges that the learned Magistrate, without considering the fact that the petitioner had been granted a licence for running the leather business, acted in a biased fashion and directed closure of the petitioner's premises without any justification. As per Shri Vyas, premises in question were being used for residential purpose. The petitioner hails from Uttar Pradesh and therefore, the residents of the locality are not happy of his having taken up residence in the said locality and therefore, they have misused the proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. as a device to oust the petitioner from his lawfully owned residential property. He thus implored the Court to accept the misc. petition and quash the impugned orders.
(3.) Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Bhaiya, learned counsel representing the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel. They urged that as two courts of competent jurisdiction have decided the matter against the petitioner, this Court should not feel persuaded to exercise its inherent powers so as to interfere in the well-reasoned orders passed by the courts below. Shri Bhaiya urged that the petitioner was causing serious public nuisance by running a leather factory in a residential area which was causing serious risk to health of the people living in the neighbouring locality and amounted to public nuisance. He thus contended that the circumstances do not warrant exercise of inherent powers of this Court so as to interfere in the order pass by the courts below. ;