KANSHI RAM Vs. LACHHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint under sections 417/506 of the Indian Penal Code was filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Jogindernagar, by Shri Kanshi Ram against Shri Lachhman and others. Since both the offences as mentioned in the complaint were triable by the Naya Panchayat, the learned Judicial Magistrate vide his order dated 21.5.1977 transferred that complaint for-disposal to the Gram Panchyat 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 Himachal 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 desposal.

(2.) The aforesaid complainant Shri Kanshi Ram had filed another complaint against Shri Bardu and others under sections 147/447/427/ 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 sections 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, he 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 upon the complaint and hence wide its order 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 for 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 abbicate its functions to the Court.

(3.) It is in these circumstances that the Judicial Magistrate had made a reference to this Court in each of the two cases after framing the following points for consideration: