KRISHNI DEVI Vs. SUNITA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 19.6.2010 passed by the Bench constituted by Gram Panchayat, Mahal, Tehsil Bhoranj, Hamirpur, H.P., further confirmed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hamirpur, vide order dated 8.2.2013 in Appeal No.2/2012.

(2.) "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondents No. 1 to 15 filed a complaint against the petitioner before the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Mahal. According to the averments contained in the complaint, the petitioner misbehaved with the members of the Mahila Mandal. The complaint was filed by fifteen members of the Mahila Mandal. Meeting of the Gram Panchayat, Mahal, was convened on 26.5.2010 and a Bench was constituted consisting of Surjit Singh (Chairman), Des Raj (ward member), Radha Devi and Bimla Devi. Summons were issued to the petitioner and one Sanjeev Kumar. On 4.6.2010, petitioner and Sanjeev Kumar were present before the Bench. Members of the Mahila Mandal namely, Sumna Devi, Suman Devi, Trishla Devi, Veena Devi, Ati Devi, Sunita Devi and Beasa Devi deposed before the Bench that that their complaint be treated as joint statement on their behalf. Petitioner refused to give any statement. She deposed that decision in her case was only to be taken by the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat and the Bench had no authority to decide her case. The petitioner was directed to produce her witnesses on 19.6.2010. The petitioner did not produce any witness in her defence on 19.6.2010 and the Bench recorded the findings that the petitioner was a quarrelsome lady and she had misbehaved with the members of Mahila Mandal. The Bench imposed a fine of Rs.500/ - upon the petitioner for using abusive language. She was further imposed a fine of Rs.1.25 for disobedience of order of the Bench. It was made clear that in case the petitioner did not deposit the fine amount till 4.7.2010, the fine amount would enhance to Rs.1 each, total Rs.2/ - per day.

(3.) MR . Neeraj Sharma, learned Advocate, has vehemently argued that there is violation of principles of natural justice by the Bench. He then contended that the petitioner has not been given ample opportunity to rebut the case of the complainants.