Shambhu Singh v. State of U.P. and Another, 2026

Respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 133 CrPC alleging that the petitioner had encroached upon a public pathway by constructing a ladder/stairs.

Proceedings were initiated before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM).

The petitioner filed objections claiming that the pathway was not used by the public and mainly carried rainwater during monsoon season.

The SDM sought a report from the Revenue Inspector regarding the alleged encroachment.

Based on the report, the SDM directed the petitioner to remove the encroachment from the pathway.

The petitioner challenged the SDM’s order before the Sessions Judge, Kushinagar, through a criminal revision petition.

The Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition.

Aggrieved by the dismissal, the petitioner approached the Allahabad High Court.

Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that there was no public pathway and therefore no encroachment.

The Court examined the petitioner’s own pleadings and found that he had admitted the existence of a two-foot-wide street/gali where rainwater flowed.

The Revenue Authorities also reported that the stairs had been constructed over the pathway between the two houses.

The High Court held that proceedings under Section 133 CrPC are summary in nature and intended to prevent imminent danger to public peace and tranquility.

The Court clarified that the legislature intentionally used the expression “any reliable evidence” and not “conclusive evidence” under Section 137 CrPC.

It was observed that an Executive Magistrate is not required to insist upon conclusive proof while deciding nuisance proceedings under Section 133 CrPC.

The Court relied upon the judgments in Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand and Wali Uddin v. State of U.P.

The Court noted that the petitioner himself admitted the existence of the pathway and rainwater passage.

It held that once existence of the public way was admitted, there was no necessity for the Executive Magistrate to conduct a detailed inquiry under Section 137 CrPC.

The Court accepted the Revenue Authorities’ findings that the stairs had been constructed on the public pathway.

The Court concluded that the petitioner had obstructed the public pathway.

Accordingly, the High Court refused to interfere with the order passed by the SDM.

The petition was dismissed.

The judgment reiterates the preventive and summary nature of proceedings under Section 133 CrPC.

The Court clarified the distinction between “reliable evidence” and “conclusive evidence”, thereby lowering the evidentiary threshold required in nuisance proceedings.

The ruling protects public rights over pathways and prevents misuse of private property rights against community access.

The judgment strengthens the powers of Executive Magistrates to take swift action in matters involving public obstruction and nuisance.

The Court balanced individual property rights with public convenience and public tranquility.

By relying on the petitioner’s own admission, the Court emphasized that admitted facts need not be proved through elaborate inquiry.

The decision also prevents unnecessary prolonging of nuisance proceedings through technical objections.