CRLMC/2796/2026 of JATA KISHORE DAS Vs DURYODHAN SAHOO on 18 August 2026

ORDER

18.08.2026 Order No.

01.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. Perused the CRLMC application as well as the documents annexed thereto.

3. By filing the present application under Section 528 of BNSS, the second party in Criminal Misc. Case No.88 of 2025 which was initiated under Section 152 of the BNSS, 2023 at the instance of the 1st party and now pending before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Puri has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing order dated 28.04.2026 passed in the abovenoted case thereby rejecting the Petitioner’s application for questioning the maintainability of such proceeding.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the first party member who is the Opposite Party in the present application initially lodged a complaint before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Puri alleging public nuisance and registered a case under Section 152 of the BNSS on the ground that the second party member is causing public nuisance. After registration of the case the present Petitioner was noticed by the learned SDM, Puri. On his appearance, the second party member filed an application questioning the maintainability of the proceeding under Section 152 of the BNSS on the ground that the tree which is allegedly causing public nuisance does not stand over his recorded land. Accordingly, it was prayed that the proceeding initiated at the instance of the first party member is not maintainable.

5. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner-first party also raised a ground with regard to non-maintainability of the Petition under Section 152 of the BNSS on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party.

6. On a careful examination of the order-sheet appended to the application of the Petitioner, it appears that on 16.12.2025, the Petitioner filed an application questioning the maintainability of the aforesaid proceeding along with a prayer for dropping the entire proceeding. In his application questioning the maintainability of the proceeding, the Petitioner has raised an issue with regard to the alleged nuisance having been cause due to conduct of the present Petitioner. It has also been specifically stated in such petition that the tree in question, allegedly a causing public nuisance, does it stand over the land of the Petitioner. A specific stand has also been taken that some of the parties who are the recorded owner, as has been indicated in the RoR in respect of the land in question, have also not been arrayed as Parties to the proceeding. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner also referred to the RoR which has been filed at Annexure-3.

7. Learned SDM, Puri after hearing the Petitioner-second party accepted the application under Section 152 of the BNSS vide his order dated 13.02.2025. Thereafter, the matter was heard in presence of both sides. Finally on 16.12.2025, the Petitioner-second party filed an application questioning the maintainability as has been indicated hereinabove. In course of hearing a report was called for from the IIC of Balanga P.S. Upon perusal of such report, learned SDM directed the Tahasildar, Nimapara to demarcate the disputed plots in presence of all interested parties and police personnel and to submit a demarcation report before him.

8. By virtue of order dated 28.04.2026, the learned SDM, Puri took up the application of the Petitioner-second party which was filed questioning the maintainability of the proceeding under Section 152 of the BNSS. Upon a careful consideration of the submission made by the second party and in order to ascertain whether the alleged ‘Chakunda’ tree was creating any nuisance for the first party and the entire locality, a report was called from the Tahasildar, Nimapara. The said order has been assailed by the second party-Petitioner in the present application under Section 528 of the BNSS.

9. On a careful analysis of the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner further on a close scrutiny of the background facts as well as the order passed by the learned SDM, Puri including the impugned order dated 28.04.2026, this Court observes that the grievance of the Petitioner is two-fold; (1) that the alleged ‘Chakunda’ tree which is causing public nuisance has been stand over his land. (2) All the co-sharers in respect of the said plots have not been arrayed as Parties to the present proceeding. On a careful examination of the order passed by the learned SDM, this Court found that the learned SDM, to ascertain as to whether the alleged ‘Chakunda’ tree was causing the public nuisance, has called for a report from the Tahasildar, Nimapara. He has also been asked to demarcate the land in question. The order directing demarcation of the land reveals that the Tahasildar, Nimapara has been requested to carry out the demarcation of the disputed plots in presence of the all interested Parties and police personnel. Thus, at the time of demarcation, the Tahasildar, Nimapara is required to issue notice to all the recorded owners of the land. So far the allegation with regard to the alleged ‘Chakunda’ tree causing public nuisance is concerned, it is yet to be determine by the learned SDM, Puri after getting the report from the Tahasildar, Nimapara.

10. In view of the aforesaid factual position, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the learned SDM, Puri does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 528 of BNSS. While disposing of the present application, this Court further clarifies that while carrying out the demarcation of the disputed plots as per the order dated 18.11.2025, after giving notice to all the interested Parties including the recorded owners for such plots, necessary police protection be provided for such demarcation work. This Court further makes it clear that in the event the report of the Tahasildar, Nimapara reveals that the ‘Chakunda’ tree for causing public nuisance. It is open to the learned SDM, Puri to add necessary parties, in the event the evidence comes on record indicating the fact that such public nuisance is being causes by any particular party, and pass necessary orders against the Parties in accordance with law. Let the aforesaid direction be carried out within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of a copy of today’s order.

11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the CRLMC application stands disposed of.

( A.K. Mohapatra)

Judge Sisir

Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 19-Aug-2026 19:00:48 Signature Not Verified