Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners herein have approached this Court for challenging the order dated 16.06.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar in revision whereby, the revisional court affirmed the order dated 31.03.2011 passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Bhadra directing that the disputed land which was located in the Bhadra Town shall not be used for a Pashumela.
(2.) Learned counsel Shri Moti Singh vehemently urged that the SDM had earlier, made an inquiry in relation to these very allegations and dropped the proceedings by a well reasoned order dated 17.03.2011. Thereafter, the proceedings were reopened simply on a purported order direction of the Human Rights Commission, without any rhyme or reason and an inquiry was directed on the very same allegations in relation whereto, the applications filed by the respondents under Section 133 Cr.P.C. had been rejected. He thus implored the Court to accept the misc. petition and to quash the impugned orders.
(3.) Per contra, Shri Nishant Mothsara, learned counsel representing the respondent No.2 Dalip Singh vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioners' counsel. However, he too was not in a position to dispute the fact that the original application before the Executive Magistrate by the respondent Dalip Singh was rejected by a detailed order dated 17.03.2011 and that the applicant Dalip Singh had recourse of filing the revision against the said order. It is also not disputed that the proceedings were resumed simply on the basis of a letter received from the Human Rights Commission. It may be mentioned here that Human Rights Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain a dispute of alleged public nuisance because Code of Criminal Procedure provides ample remedies for resolving such disputes. That apart, the order dated 17.03.2011, which has been placed on record of the petition rejecting the application filed by the complainant Dalip Singh, indicates that a civil suit is also going on in relation to the very same plot and that the petitioners have categorically disputed the complainant's claim relating to the public property.;