JAISRI TEWARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by Jaisri Tewari and his son, Surajbali Tewari. The facts leading up to the revision are these : On 11-7-1949, Bindeshwari Tewari filed a complaint against Jaisri Tewari and Surajbali Tewari. In the complaint, it was prayed that the accused be dealt with for offences punishable under Sections 341, 447, 504 and 506, Penal Code. There was a further prayer that they may also be required to execute a bond for keeping the peace under Section 106, Criminal P. C. The complainant, Bindeshwari Tewari, described himself as the piada of Srinath Sah and others, zemindars of village Sahjore in the district of Banaras. He had alleged in the complaint that the zemindars had obtained a decree for ejectment under Section 180, U. P. Tenancy Act (XVII [17] of 1939) against Jaisri Tewari and Surajbali Tewari; that the zemindars had taken possession over the land in dispute under the decree made on 25-5-1949, and that while he was getting the land cultivated, on behalf of the zemindars, Jaisri Tewari and Surajbali Tewari forcibly prevented him from doing so and threatened to attack him with lathis and break his hands and feet.

(2.) The learned Magistrate, to whom the complaint was transferred, took cognisance of the offences mentioned therein and proceeded to try the case as a warrant case. He heard the complainant, recorded the statements of the witnesses produced in support of the prosecution, and also examined the accused. On 4-1-1950, the accused filed an application before the Magistrate pointing out that the offences, under Sections 341, 447, 504 and 506, Penal Code, were exclusively cognisable by a Panchayati Adalat, and that under Section 56, U. P. Panchayat Raj Act (XXVI [26] of 1947) the case be transferred to the Panchayati Adalat.

(3.) The application filed on behalf of the accused was opposed on the ground that the Panchayati Adalat was not empowered to grant the relief under Sections 106 and 522, Criminal P. C., which the complainant had claimed and was going to claim. The Magistrate rejected the application being of the opinion that the complainant should not be deprived of these remedies to which he was entitled under the law.