GOVERDHAN DASS Vs. SMT. BHAOMATU AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was filed by Goverdhan Dass on 19th December, 1972. By this petition he had prayed for quashing the proceedings before the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Rampur, i.e., Respondent No. 2, initiated by Smt. Bhagmatu under Sec. 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance against the Petitioner.

(2.) The Petitioner had questioned the jurisdiction of the Magistrate by this petition and according to him under Sec. 203(2) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1968 (hereinafter called the Act) the powers to hear and decide applications under Sec. 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been given only to a Nyaya Panchayat. The jurisdiction of the other Courts have been completely barred. As such the Respondent No. 2 has no inherent jurisdiction to the cognizance of the proceedings and the proceedings are, accordingly, without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

(3.) At the time of the admission when the learned Counsel for the Petitioner was asked whether he had taken up this objection before the Court, i.e., the Respondent No. 2, it was told that he had not taken up this objection, therefore, the Court vide its order, dated December 26, 1972, ordered that the ground on which the miscellaneous petition No. Cr. M. P. (M) 33 of 1972 was brought could be taken by way of an objection before the Magistrate concerned and that it was desirable that the objection should first be raised before the Magistrate and his decision taken thereon and the petition in this Court was kept pending. It appears that the [Petitioner did take up this objection before the Magistrate, who, vide] his order, dated 30th January, 1973, held that the Magistrate and the Nyaya Panchayats have concurrent, jurisdiction to entertain applications under Sec. 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter the Petitioner moved another application Cr. M. P. 8 of 1973 in the Cr. M. P. (M) 33 of 1972 for admission and also filed another application Cr. M. P. 16 of 1973 in Cr. M.P.(M). 33 of the 1972 with the same prayer as was made in the earlier application. The Petitioner has also submitted that during the pendency of the petition in this Court the Respondent No. 2 had decided the case finally and, therefore, by this petition No. Cr. M.P. 16 of 1973 he has also prayed for quashing that order, dated 26th February, 1973, whereby he had fixed Rs. 75/ - per month as maintenance to Respondent No. 1 and their two minor children.