Section 133 CrPC: A Critical Analysis

Share & spread the love


It is the major obligation of the State to keep up open request. The meaning of open request is given in segment 31 of the Police Act of 1861 and requires that request will be kept up on open streets and out in the open spots, hindrance won’t be caused by gatherings and parades and, when this is perused with area

34 which make it an offense for any individual to cause block, bother, inconvenience, hazard, peril or harm and segment 23, which makes it officeholder upon the police to keep up the general population peace and keep the commission of offense and of open irritation, unmistakably open request truly implies that the activities of a gathering of people ought not encroach on the rights and comfort of some other gathering.

A gathering of people who utilize criminal power with a specific end goal to make an open worker halt from his obligation, oppose the execution of any law or lawful process, perpetrate evil or criminal trespass, deny some other individual of his property, happiness regarding a privilege of way or quiet delight in rights by utilization of criminal power, or utilize criminal power to force a man to do an illicit demonstration naturally turns into an unlawful get together under area 141 of the IPC on the off chance that it comprises of at least five people.


In order to provide a sanction under Section 133 the Magistrate must be satisfied that-

1. It is a public nuisance i.e. the number of persons injuriously affected is so considerable that they may reasonably be regarded as the public or a portion of it.

2. It is not a private dispute between different members of the public for which the proper forum is the civil court.

3. It is a case of great emergency of imminent danger to the public interest..


There are other special or local laws dealing with nuisance. But the Magistrate’s power to act under Section 133 is not affected by them. Even the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 has not taken away powers of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 133 CrPC. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate has power to close a factory causing pollution, when appreciation certificate from the Pollution Control Board is not produced.

In Lakshmi Cement case, it was held that Section 133 CrPC does not automatically or impliedly get repealed after the commencement of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. So proceedings under Section 133 CrPC are not barred.


(1) issue of conditional ex parte orders

(2) service of order

(3) person to obey or show cause

(4) in urgency, issue of temporary injunction

(5) enquiry and findings’ recording

(6) examination by an expert

(7) dropping or continuing the proceedings

(8) enforcement


Legitimate arrangements with respect to Removal of Public Nuisances under segment 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. A class or group living in a specific region may go in close vicinity to the term ‘open’. ‘Irritation’ is a bother which tangibly meddles with the standard physical solace of human presence. The general population put must be interested in people in general, i.e., a place to which the general population approach by right, consent, use or something else. The system to evacuate general society.

The request appropriately made by a Magistrate under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure might not be brought being referred to in any thoughtful Court. As indicated by Section 12 of the Indian Penal Code, the word ‘open’ incorporates any class of the general population or group; yet that class must be numerically adequate to be assigned ‘people in general’. Consequently, one can opine that if a specific individual or his family is just influenced by the irritation, such aggravation can’t be thought to be an open disturbance and henceforth its expulsion from any open place can’t be requested under Section 133. However, as Section 133 does not determine the base number of people that ought to live or carrying on business in the area, and so forth., the necessity of the segment is fulfilled regardless of the possibility that the peril is limited to the individuals from a solitary family. [1]

The question of Section 133 is to forestall open annoyance that if the judge neglects to take prompt response to Section 133, unsalvageable harm would be done to general society. In any case, no activity appears to be conceivable under Section 133, if the irritation has been in presence for a long stretch. All things considered, the bothered party needs to move the common court for the cure.

Under Section 133of the Code, the Magistrate can follow up on data got from any source either through a police report or other report. Before passing a restrictive request under Section 133, a Magistrate will undoubtedly take prove, on the grounds that the procedures are completely ex parte. Be that as it may, the Magistrate should record the proof under this Section before making the request total. He should likewise accord a chance to the people concerned who are probably going to be distressed.

The procedures under Section 133 are pretty much rundown and it can’t be continued pending for quite a while. The assertion was made that red chillies were put away in go down in private region and stacking, emptying thereof was making physical inconvenience and damage the strength of individuals in area.


Open aggravation is both a common wrong and a criminal off-base. A man abused by the same can record a suit for harms/pay in a common court against the individual causing people in general nuisance.

The primary arrangement is area 133. The power for evacuation of irritation is given to the District Magistrate or the S.D.M. or, on the other hand some other approved Executive Magistrate. In the event that any of these officers, on receipt of the report of a cop or other data and on taking such confirmation as he supposes fit, considers that any demonstration or direct of a man or anything is causing impediment, aggravation and so on in any of the way indicated in segment 133, at that point the officer can make a restrictive request coordinating the individual making such block or annoyance evacuate it in the way

determined in that. On the off chance that the guilty party objects, at that point he is given show cause see concerning why such restrictive request be not made outright.[2]


But while passing an order under Section 133 the Magistrate should be very keen about the complaint and also should see the fulfilment of the required conditions as stipulated. Otherwise the order passed by such Magistrate can be held illegal as it was in Chabila Roy v. State where the Magistrate on receiving a complaint regarding the running of a “khatal” did not examine the petitioner and the local people about the physical discomfort or health hazard on account of the “khatal”, passed an order. It was held that the order was illegal being in variance with express provisions of Section 133 CrPC.

For Important Case Laws of Environmental Law, Click Here.

For more articles on Environmental Law, Click Here.

For law notes, Click Here.


[1] Eastern Book Company – Practical Lawyer.mhtml


Author Details: Jeba Mondal (Presidency University , Bangalore)

The views of the author are personal only. (if any)

Attention all law students!

Are you tired of missing out on internship, job opportunities and law notes?

Well, fear no more! With 45,000+ students already on board, you don't want to be left behind. Be a part of the coolest legal community around!

Join our WhatsApp Groups (Click Here) and Telegram Channel (Click Here) and get instant notifications.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.