Judgment: 1. Rule. 2. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents waive service of this petition. By consent petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. Respondent No. 1 herein filed complaint before the Sub Divisional Magistrate at Warora praying that action under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be initiated against the present petitioner because the activity carried out by the petitioner namely running of floor mill and Chilly pounding is causing nuisance to respondent No. 1. The said matter was taken up by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Warora. He treated it as Criminal case No. 2/1998/CRPC133 and after recording statements of present respondent No. 1 and other persons, vide order dated 12/6/2007 ordered certain changes in the floor mill and chilly ponding machine of the petitioner and further directed that till such time those changes are carried out, the floor mill and chilly ponding machine should be kept close. 4. Being aggrieved by this order dated 12/6/2007 the petitioner filed criminal revision No. 96 of 2007 in the Sessions Court at Chandrapur. The said revision came to be assigned to the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-2, Chandrapur, who, by his judgment and order dated 02/5/2008 dismissed the same. Being aggrieved by these orders the petitioner has filed the present petition. 5. I have heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and the respondents. It was sought to be argued by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that action initiated against the petitioner itself is not within the parameters of Section 133 Cri. P. C., and therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate and confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is wrong and required to be interfered with. He had drawn my attention to the map issued by Tahsildar, Warora and had tried to submit that there is distance between the shop of the petitioner and the respondent of about 18 ft. i.e. the shop of the petitioner is on one side of the road and the shop of respondent No. 1 is on the other side. He also pointed out on the basis of the said map that chilly pounding is about 19 ft. away from the entrance of the shop. He submitted that the activity of chilly pounding is done at a distance of about 37 ft. away from the entrance of the shop of respondent No. 1. He also pointed out on the basis of the said map that chilly pounding is about 19 ft. away from the entrance of the shop. He submitted that the activity of chilly pounding is done at a distance of about 37 ft. away from the entrance of the shop of respondent No. 1. He had submitted that the map is relevant and throws light on the factual aspect. Learned Advocate Shri Mardikar further submitted that the action initiated by the Sub Divisional Magistrate does not fall within the ambit of Section 133 Cri. P.C. and in particular the term, “public nuisance” as the complaint initiated by respondent No. 1 and not supported by members of the public as one can understand keeping in view the term of “public nuisance”. Therefore, interference by this Court is required in the matter. 6. As against this argument advanced by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, Shri Khajanchi, learned Advocate for respondent No. 1 drew my attention to the statements which came to be recorded that all his customers have made categorical statements about the activities carried out by the petitioner. He has further submitted that the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate was right in arriving at the conclusion. 7. I have perused the record. No doubt, some of the customers of respondent No. 1 had stated that they are unable to stay in the shop of respondent No. 1 for a long time and are required to leave. However, the record shows that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross examine those persons, i.e. to say the statements recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate appear to be unilateral and thus the procedure followed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate was not in consonance with the normal procedure to be followed so as to comply with the principles of natural justice. 8. It is to be noted that the complaint is filed by respondent No. 1 and no shopkeepers or individuals who have their residence nearby the shop of petitioner or respondent No. 1, have come forward to make the grievance about the petitioner’s activity. 9. Having considered the entire record, I am inclined to accept the argument advanced by the learned Advocate for petitioner. 9. Having considered the entire record, I am inclined to accept the argument advanced by the learned Advocate for petitioner. Both the Authorities; the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge should have noted that the grievance brought before them is not in the nature of public nuisance as understood by the term “public nuisance” and may fall within the ambit of the term, “private nuisance”. Provided, case of private nuisance is made out in a proper manner and not the manner in which it is sought to be done in this case. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the action initiated by the Sub Divisional Magistrate is illegal and is required to be quashed and set aside. 11. After the aforesaid conclusion, learned Advocate Shri Khajanchi for respondent No. 1 submitted that respondent No.1 be granted liberty to initiate action against the petitioner by making use of the term “public nuisance”. 12. In my view, no specific liberty is required to be granted. Respondent No. 1 is free to attend to the matter as he may be advised. Hence, the order: i) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (i).