This section lets magistrates settle private property disputes between neighbors.

Courts have clarified it is meant only for public nuisances affecting the community at large, not private civil rights disputes—those must go through ordinary civil litigation.

Once a magistrate's order is made, it can never be challenged anywhere.

While subsection (2) bars civil courts from questioning it, the person affected can still show cause before the magistrate, and higher criminal courts can review the order through revision if procedure wasn't followed.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Section 152

Conditional order for removal of nuisance

(1) Whenever a District Magistrate or a Sub-divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered in this 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—§

(a) that any unlawful obstruction or nuisance should be removed from any public place or from any way, river or channel which is or may be lawfully used by the public; or§

(b) that the conduct of any trade or occupation, or the keeping of any goods or merchandise, is injurious to the health or physical comfort of the community, and that in consequence such trade or occupation should be prohibited or regulated or such goods or merchandise should be removed or the keeping thereof regulated; or§

(c) that the construction of any building, or, the disposal of any substance, as is likely to occasion conflagration or explosion, should be prevented or stopped; or§

(d) that any building, tent or structure, or any tree is in such a condition that it is likely to fall and thereby cause injury to persons living or carrying on business in the neighbourhood or passing by, and that in consequence the removal, repair or support of such building, tent or structure, or the removal or support of such tree, is necessary; or§

(e) that any tank, well or excavation adjacent to any such way or public place should be fenced in such manner as to prevent danger arising to the public; or§

(f) that any dangerous animal should be destroyed, confined or otherwise disposed of, such Magistrate may make a conditional order requiring the person causing such obstruction or nuisance, or carrying on such trade or occupation, or keeping any such goods or merchandise, or owning, possessing or controlling such building, tent, structure, substance, tank, well or excavation, or owning or possessing such animal or tree, within a time to be fixed in the order—§

(i) to remove such obstruction or nuisance; or§

(ii) to desist from carrying on, or to remove or regulate in such manner as may be directed, such trade or occupation, or to remove such goods or merchandise, or to regulate the keeping thereof in such manner as may be directed; or§

(iii) to prevent or stop the construction of such building, or to alter the disposal of such substance; or§

(iv) to remove, repair or support such building, tent or structure, or to remove or support such trees; or§

(v) to fence such tank, well or excavation; or§

(vi) to destroy, confine or dispose of such dangerous animal in the manner provided in the said order, or, if he objects so to do, to appear before himself or some other Executive Magistrate subordinate to him at a time and place to be fixed by the order, and show cause, in the manner hereinafter provided, why the order should not be made absolute.§

(2) No order duly made by a Magistrate under this section shall be called in question in any Civil Court. Explanation.—A “public place” includes also property belonging to the State, camping grounds and grounds left unoccupied for sanitary or recreative purposes.§

Why this exists

This provision descends from colonial-era public nuisance law (Section 133 of the old Criminal Procedure Code, itself rooted in 19th-century codification of English nuisance principles). It was designed to give local magistrates a fast, low-formality tool to protect public safety and health—clearing blocked roads, stopping dangerous trades, or securing unsafe structures—without waiting for a lengthy civil lawsuit. The 'conditional order' structure balances speed (immediate provisional order) with fairness (the affected person gets a chance to show cause before the order becomes final).

How courts read it

The Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardichand (1980) used this provision (then Section 133 CrPC) to compel a municipality to fix open drains and sewage causing public health hazards, holding that budgetary constraints could not excuse inaction when public nuisance was proven. Courts have consistently treated this as a summary, preventive remedy—not a substitute for full civil litigation over private rights—and have read subsection (2)'s bar on civil courts narrowly, allowing higher criminal courts (via revision) to review whether the magistrate followed proper procedure.

Common misconceptions

Myth: This section lets magistrates settle private property disputes between neighbors.
Fact: Courts have clarified it is meant only for public nuisances affecting the community at large, not private civil rights disputes—those must go through ordinary civil litigation.
Myth: Once a magistrate's order is made, it can never be challenged anywhere.
Fact: While subsection (2) bars civil courts from questioning it, the person affected can still show cause before the magistrate, and higher criminal courts can review the order through revision if procedure wasn't followed.