H.N. Seth, J.
1. By this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Mangal and four others pray that the proceedings initiated against them under Section 133 Cr.P.C. and the conditional order passed thereon dated 11th May, 1976 as also the direction issued under Section 142 Cr.P.C. on 15th May, 1976 be quashed.
2. One Babu Ram filed an application In the court of Sub-divisional Magistrate, Sikandrabad on 10th May, 1976 praying that proceeding under Section 133 Cr.P.C. be taken against the applicants who had made certain encroachment on the public way. Babu Ram put in another application under Section 142 Cr.P.C. mentioning that despite protest Mangal and others were continuing to make further construction and that they should be restrained from doing so. On both these applications the sub-divisional Magistrate made an order on 11th May, 1976 which read thus:
Seen the papers and the eifidavit produced before me. Issue conditional! order Under Section 133 Cr.P.C. and injunction order Under Section 142 Cr.P.C.
In pursuance of this order following notice under the signature of Link Officer was drawn up:
Whereas an inquiry info the conditional order issued by me today is pending and it had been made to appear to me that you Mangat son of Nathuwa Liley Charfa Rati Ram sons of Mangal all residents of village Pali, P.S. Dadri have encroached upon the public way by raising wall in the public way No. 758 In village Pali. P.S. Dadri towards the east and south of your Gher and such constructions as also the obstruction is attended with such imminent danger of Injury of a serious kind to the public as to render necessary Immediate measures to prevent such danger or injury.
I do hereby under the provision of Section 142 of the Cr.P.C. direct and require you forthwith to demolish the said wall from the said public way; pending the result of the enquiry.
3. Learned Counsel for the applicant contends that the orders dated 11th May, 1976 are not in accordance with law and are liable to be set aside.
4. In my opinion, there is force in this submission, According to Section 133(1) whenever a District Magistrate or a Sub-divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered in that behalf by the State Government, on receiving the report of a Police Officer or other information and on taking such evidence (if any) as he thinks fit, considers that any unlawful obstruction or nuisance should be removed from any public place or from any way, river or channel which may be lawfully used by public etc., he may make conditional order requiring the persons causing such obstruction to remove the same within the time stated in the order or in case they object to the order, they should appear before him or some other executive Magistrate subordinate to him at a time and place stated in the order and to show cause as to why the order be not made absolute. So far as the first order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 11-5-1976 is concerned it was merely a direction that an order under Sections 133 and 142 of the Code of Cr. Procedure be drawn upon. It is apparent that it was not the formal order under Section 133, which had yet to be drafted and signed by him. Coming now to the actual notice issued to the applicant in pursuance of the aforesaid order made by the Magistrate, I find that it merely recites the reason for and the direction issued under Section 142 of the Code, It states that whereas an enquiry into a conditional order made under Section 133 Cr.P.C. is pending and the information received by the Magistrate showed that an unlawful obstruction or nuisance had been made which was causing imminent danger of serious type to the public and such danger had to be prevented, accordingly order under Section 142 Cr.P.C. requiring the applicant to demolish the said construction was being made. On the face of it this order does not partake the nature of an order which is to be made under Section 133 Cr.P.C. It is not in the nature of a conditional order requiring the applicant either to do some thing within the time specified therein or to show cause. It appears that the Magistrate passed the order requiring the Officer to draw up an order under Section 133 Cr.P.C. and expected that the officer would draw up such an order for him and place the same for his signature. This, in my opinion, was not In accordance with the law.
5. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties urged that in the notice issued to the applicant on same date, it was mentioned that the applicant had encroached upon public way by raising a wall. Accordingly, it cannot be denied that the learned Magistrate had formed an opinion that the obstruction by way of encroachment had been made on a public way end that it deserved to be removed. Requirement of Section 133 Cr.P.C. therefore, had been substantially complied with and no interference in revision is called for. I am unable to accept this submission. In the first place, the notice copy of which has been filed as Annexure 3 cannot be equated with an order under Section 133 Cr.P.C. Aforementioned facts were recited merely to indicate the circumstances in which an order under Section 142 Cr.P.C. was being passed. In any case, even if the order dated 11th May, 1976 is read along with notice prepared on 11th May, 1976, it would still not comply with the remaining requirements of Section 133 of the Code of Cr. Procedure namely that the applicants should have been told that they could appear before the court on the date and place fixed by it and file such objection to the conditional order as they liked. There is no escape from the position that in this case no proper order under Section 133, Cr.P.C. has been issued.
6. At this stage I would like to point out that in order to facilitate passing of orders under Section 133, guidance has been provided in the shape of Form No. 20, appended to Schduled II of the Code of Cr. Procedure. The subordinate courts would do well to keep the form in mind while passing order under Section 133 of the Code of Cr. Procedure.
7. Power to issue Injunction under Section 142 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by a Magistrate making an order under Section 133. Existence of a proper order under Section 133 Cr.P.C. is a condition precedent for issuing an injunction order contemplated by Section 142 of the Code, In this case, as there is no proper order under Section 133 Cr.P.C. in existence, the injunction order, copy of which has been filed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition, can also not be sustained.
8. Further, an injunction under Section 142 Cr.P.C. Is not to be issued merely because a conditional order under Section 133 Cr.P.C. has been made, Before issuing such an injunction the court has to satisfy itself that immediate measures have to be taken to prevent imminent danger or injury of a serious kind to the public. The notice dated 11th May, 1976 (An-nexure 3 to the writ petition) does not indicate the reasons as to why the Magistrate considered that immediate measures had to be taken to prevent imminent danger or Injury of serious kind to the public. In my opinion, the learned Magistrate should have before issuing an injunction under Section 142 Cr.P.C. indicated either in the order itself or somewhere in the file of the case, the reasons as to why he considered it necessary to make such an order.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion this application succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 11th May, 1976 (An-nexure 1 to the application) and the notice dated 11th May, 1976 (Annexure 3 to the application) are quashed. I, however, make it clear that it would be open to the concerned Magistrate to take, on the basis of the report already existing on the record for this purpose, fresh proceedings in accordance with law.