Back
2013 Supreme(SC) 523
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. SATHASIVAM AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.
Sharanjit Kaur & Anr. - Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent(s)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 811 OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 6746 of 2012), CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 812 OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 9690 of 2012)
Decided on: 01-07-2013
IMPORTANT POINT
Offences such as offence under Section 420 IPC where allegations are of serious nature eg, the accused persons have duped the complainant of Rs. 30 lakhs should be tried by regular Criminal Court only and not by the Gram Panchayat. In such cases investigation shall be done by the police authorities.
Headnote:(a) Indian Penal code 1860 - Section 420- Punjab Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 - Jurisidction of Gram Panchayats in serious offences- Complaint filed under Section 420 IPC against the appellants and two others alleging embezzlement of Rs. 30 lakhs on the pretext of sending his son to America for a permanent job for which he paid the above said amount in several instalments to the accused persons-On failure to honour the promise, the appellants issued a cheque of Rs. 30 lakhs to the complainant, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds- Two accused persons filed criminal writ petition before the High Court praying for an order restraining their arrest in view of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 being a Special Act applicable to the offences leveled against them- The High Court dismissed the writ petition and observed that the offence comes under the purview of IPC and rejected the contention put forth by the appellants by dismissing their petition for anticipatory bail-Hence leave petition before the Supreme Court.
Held, no ’exclusive jurisdiction’ for trying certain criminal offences has been conferred upon Gram Panchayat under the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 or Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 in no way prohibits the investigation and arrest by the Police. (Paras 9 and 10)
There is no bar for investigating any offence by the police including the offences mentioned in the Schedule II of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.
The investigation would include the power to arrest and the ordinary procedure under the Code will govern the entire proceedings.
Till the stage of completion of investigation, Gram Panchayat has no jurisdiction at all.
After the report of police under Section 173, the Magistrate shall transfer the case for trial to Gram Panchayat or to any other subordinate court to him.
Unless a case is transferred to Gram Panchayat under Section 45 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the ’Gram Panchayat’ does not get any jurisdiction over the said case/investigation unless the offence is one mentioned in Section 47(3) of the said Act.
However, it is open to any person/complainant to directly approach the Gram Panchayat by submitting a written complaint. In that case also, if it is a cognizable offence, there is no bar for the police to investigate the matter. (Para 16).
Further held, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the investigation is to be conducted by the police authorities only and the offence of Section 420 IPC where the allegations are of a serious nature and the appellants has duped of Rs. 30 lakhs from the complainant, should be tried by the regular criminal court only and not by the Gram Panchayat. (Para 18).
JUDGMENT
P.Sathasivam,J.
1) Leave granted.
2) These appeals are filed against the final judgment and orders dated 23.07.2012 and 07.11.2012 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Misc. No. M-21109 of 2012 and Criminal Writ Petition No. 1843 of 2012 respectively whereby the High Court dismissed the petitions filed by the appellants herein.
3) Brief facts:
a) On 03.04.2012, a First Information Report (FIR) being No. 17 was lodged by one Kahan Singh, r/o Village Chugawan Roopamali, Kathunangal, Amritsar, against Sharanjit Kaur, Mukhtiar Singh, Manjit Kaur and Kirandeep @ Mandeep Kaur, r/o Village Mann, Tehsil and District Amritsar, at P.S. Kathunangal, Amritsar under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”) alleging embezzlement of Rs. 30 lakhs on the pretext of sending his son-Gurpreet Singh to America for a permanent job for which he paid the above said amount in several instalments to the accused persons. It was also alleged in the complaint that on failure to honour the promise, the appellants issued a cheque of Rs. 30 lakhs to the complainant bearing No. 534873 dated 23.02.2012, which got dishonoured due to insufficient funds.
b) Against the said FIR, Manjit Kaur and Mandeep Kaur filed an application for anticipatory bail being No. 6148 of 2012 and Sharanjit Kaur and Mukhtiar Singh also filed a similar application being No. 7617 of 2012 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “the Code”) before the Additional Session Judge, Amritsar which were dismissed vide orders dated 19.04.2012 and 18.05.2012 respectively.
c) Aggrieved by the orders dated 18.05.2012 and 19.04.2012, Sharanjit Kaur and Mukhtiar Singh filed Criminal Misc. No. M-21109 of 2012 and Manjit Kaur and Mandeep Kaur filed Criminal Misc. No. M-12763 of 2012 before the High Court for anticipatory bail which were dismissed by orders dated 23.07.2012 and 03.05.2012 respectively.
d) Against the said order, Manjit Kaur and Mandeep Kaur preferred Special Leave Petition No. 4932 of 2012 before this Court. Vide order dated 20.07.2012, this Court, dismissed the same.
e) Being aggrieved by the order dated 23.07.2012, the co-accused Sharanjit Kaur and Mukhtiar Singh filed Special Leave Petition No. 6746 of 2012 before this Court. Vide order dated 21.09.2012, while issuing notice, this Court stayed the arrest of the co-accused.
f) In the meantime, Manjit Kaur and Mandeep Kaur again moved a petition being Criminal Writ Petition No. 1843 of 2012 before the High Court praying for an order restraining their arrest in view of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 being a Special Act applicable to the offences leveled against them.
g) By order dated 07.11.2012, the High Court dismissed the Criminal Writ Petition No. 1843 of 2012 filed by the appellants herein.
h) Questioning the order dated 07.11.2012, the appellants, viz., Manjit Kaur and Mandeep Kaur, filed Special Leave Petition No. 9690 of 2012 before this Court.
4) Heard Mr. R.K. Kapoor, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Ajay Kapur, learned AAG for the respondent-State and Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, learned ASG as amicus curiae.
Discussion:
5) It is the claim of the appellants that whether in view of Sections 4(2), 5, 44-51, 71 and 77 etc. of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 which give complete powers to the Gram Panchayat to take cognizance of criminal cases, accept complaints, conduct enquiries, summon witnesses, proceed with the trial, pass orders of conviction, sentence and compensation, the impugned proceedings initiated under the IPC is sustainable? On the other hand, it is the stand of the respondent-State that in view of serious allegations against the appellants who cheated the complainant’s son and committed fraud by taking his money, in spite of Section 44(3) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the prosecuting authority is entitled to proceed under the provisions of the IPC.
6) In order to understand the rival contentions, it is useful to refer the b
