JUDGMENT Allsop, J. - This application in revision arises out of proceedings u/s 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Applicant, Ram Dayal Misra, lodged information with a magistrate that the opposite party, Mst. Jagdamba Devi and Suraj Prasad had built a platform which encroached upon and obstructed a public way. The magistrate called for a report from a qanungo who supported Ram Dayal Misra. The magistrate then issued a conditional order u/s 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The opposite party, Mst. Jagdamba Devi and Suraj Prasad, appeared and contested the report. They said that there had been no encroachment. The magistrate then called for a report from another qanungo who also supported Ram Dayal Misra. On further objection the Tahsildar was requested to inspect the locality and he reported that there was a slight encroachment but it did not cause any real obstruction. On this report the magistrate filed the papers and took no further action. Ram Dayal Misra made an application to the Sessions Judge to take action in revision. The learned Judge said that the magistrate's order was not very clear but he considered that it meant that although there had been an encroachment on public land, the, encroachment was trifling and such inconvenience as was caused was caused personally to the complainant and not in general to the public. He refused to make any recommendation to this Court. It is argued before me that the procedure of the magistrate was irregular. this Court, however, is not a Court of Criminal Appeal and it will only interfere if substantial injustice has been done. The application is based upon a misconception that these proceedings are intended to settle private disputes between different members of the public. They are in fact intended to protect the public as a whole against inconvenience. If the Applicant has any private right which he wishes to enforce it, he should take his troubles to the civil court. 2. There is no force in the application and I reject it.