JUDGMENT V.D. Bhargava, J. - These are four connected references, arising out of proceedings u/s 133 Cr. P.C 2. The District Board of Etawah served notices on several persons including the applicants in the revisions out of which these references arise, for removal of certain shops which, according to the objectors had existed for more than 50 years. The Magistrate did not in the beginning take proper legal proceedings. Later on his attention was drawn to S. 139A, according to which at first the objector should be given an opportunity to deny or accept the existence of any public right in respect of any way etc. and to produce evidence if he denies where after the Magistrate shall enquire into the matter. If upon such enquiry the Magistrate finds that there is any reliable evidence in respect of such denial, he shall stay the proceedings until the matter of existence of such rights has been decided by a competent civil court. If he finds that there is no such evidence he is to proceed as laid down in Ss. 137 or 138 as the case may require. 3. Here, after recording some evidence of the District Board he directed the objectors to produce evidence. They produced certain documents including sale deeds, mortgage deeds and other documents which proved the existence of these shops since a long time and they denied that there had been any obstruction or nuisance or danger to the public in the use of any way and, therefore S. 133 did not apply. 4. The learned Magistrate thought that "reliable evidence" in S. 139A meant a definite proof and therefore, he asked the District Board to produce evidence and proceeded u/s s. 137 and 138 Cr. P. C. Against that order these persons filed revisions before the Sessions Judge who has referred the cases to this Court with the recommendation that since there was prima facie evidence on record, the court was not justified in proceeding further u/s 137. It should have stayed the proceedings until the matter about the existence of such rights had been decided by a competent civil court. 5. The object of S. 133 is not to have a civil matter decided in criminal proceedings and thereby to save the trouble of filing civil suits. It should have stayed the proceedings until the matter about the existence of such rights had been decided by a competent civil court. 5. The object of S. 133 is not to have a civil matter decided in criminal proceedings and thereby to save the trouble of filing civil suits. If there has been any obstruction, within a reasonable time, it is only than that recourse to S. 133 Code of Criminal Procedure should be had. But if the constructions, as in this case appear to be, are about 40, 50 or 60 years old and they have been existing there, then I think it is a misuse of S. 133 to apply it here. 6. Secondly, the expression "reliable evidence" as used in S. 139A Code of Criminal Procedure does not mean definite proof. It means that if prima facie it appears that there has been no obstruction within a reasonably recent time and there was some justification for the construction and there was evidence, which if led without any contradiction would establish that the objector had some right, then in that case the criminal court should not go on with the proceedings. 7. It is only when the court thinks that excuse to be of a flimsy nature that it has to make further enquiry . In the present case, as the learned Sessions Judge has found it there was enough evidence which could be called "reliable evidence" and the Magistrate was not justified in proceeding. 8. Accordingly, I accept the references and quash the order of the Magistrate for proceeding with the case. The Magistrate shall stay further hearing of the proceedings and he will direct the parties to have the right decided by a competent court.