KANSHI RAM Vs. LACHHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint under Sections 447/506 of the Indian Penal Code was filed iii' the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Jogindernagar, by Shri Kansi Ram against Shri Lachman and others. Since both the offences as mentioned in the complaint were trriable by the Naya Panchayat, the learned Judicial Magistrate vide his order dated 21.5.1977 transferred that complaint for disposal to the Gram Panchayat in terms of Section 207 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1968. It appears that the Gram Panchayat after recording some evidence formed the view that it was not in a position to adjudicate upon that complaint and hence, vide its order dated 22.8.1980 it forwarded that complaint to the Judicial Magistrate for adjudication. This was done by the Gram Panchayat purporting to act under the provisions of Section 201 (c) of the Himaohal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1968. The Judicial Magistrate, however, was of the view that the order of the Gram Panchayat sending back the complaint to the court for disposal was a vague one and hence he once again sent back the complaint to the Gram Panchayat for disposal. The Gram Panchayat however, reiterated its earlier view and again sent back the complaint to the Judicial Magistrate for disposal.

(2.) THE aforesaid complainant Shri Kanshi Ram had filed another complaint against Shri Bardu and others under Sections 147/447/4271 379/506 of the Indian Penal Code in the same court which was registered as Criminal Case No. 132 of 1977. The Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that a prima facie case under Section 447/427 only of the Indian Penal Code was made out against the accused persons and since both these offences were exclusively triable by the Gram Panchayat, be vide his order dated 23.2.1978 forwarded the complaint to Gram Panchayat, Utpur, for disposal in accordance with law. In this case again the Gram Panchayat after recording some evidence observed that it was not in a position to adjudicate order upon the complaint and hence vide its dated 22.8,1980 it sent back , the complaint to the Judicial Magistrate for disposal. It may be observed that the subject matter of dispute in both the complaints was the same land and there was some civil litigation pending between the parties with respect to its title and possession at the time when these complaints were filed. It was perhaps in view of this civil litigation and the rival claims of the parties with respect to the title and possession of the land in dispute that the Gram Panchayat felt it difficult to adjudicate upon the complaints. The learned Judicial Magistrate was, however, of the view that the Gram Panchayat had sent back the complaint to the court only because it wanted to avoid its responsibilities and to abdicate its functions to the Court.

(3.) IF answer to point No.3 is in the negative, what is the remedy available for the Appellate Courts to deal with such a situation of disobedience and non -observance of the directions of the courts - 4. On receipt of these references in this Court the same were placed before My Lord the then Chief Justice on 29th April, 1983. My Lord the then Chief Justice passed an order on that date directing that these references be registered as criminal references under Section 395 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In pursuance to that order the aforesaid references were registered as Criminal References Nos. 4 and 5 of 1933.