Point of Law: Section 64 of Act provides that Gram Panchayat shall report the fact if accused fails to appear or cannot be found, to nearest Magistrate.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following relief:-

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed and impugned summons dated 26.06.2019 (Annexure P-6) issued by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Anni, District Kullu, H.P. to the petitioners may kindly be quashed and set aside and further proceedings before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Anni, District Kullu, H.P. connected with the same summons may also be quashed and set aside, in the interest of law and justice.”

2. Facts necessary for adjudication of the instant petition can be summed up as under:

(a) Two cross FIRs bearing Nos. 17 of 2016 and 18 of 2016, arising out of the same incident, came to be registered at Police station Nirmand, District Kullu, H.P. on 03.03.2016.

(b) FIR No. 17 of 2016 was registered under Sections 451, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act at the instance of Respondent No.2 and the petitioner alongwith one Bhima Ram were named as accused.

(c) FIR No. 18 of 2016 was registered under Sections 353, 332, 504 and 186 of the IPC on the basis of written complaint of the Assistant Engineer, IPH Sub Division Nither, Distt Kullu and Respondent No.2 was named as accused therein.

(d) It was alleged by way of FIR No. 18 of 2016 that on 03.03.2016, at about 8.00 a.m., petitioner No.1 along with Bhima Ram, Fitter, was on duty to inspect water supply scheme. During such inspection, it was noticed that respondent No.2 had illegally attached an electrical motor/pump to main water supply line. On being asked to disconnect the electric motor/pump from the water supply line, respondent No.2 got infuriated and committed offence of obstructing the public servant in discharge of his duty. It was further alleged that respondent No.2 had even physically assaulted petitioner No.1.

(e) On the other hand, respondent No.2 had alleged in his complaint that it was petitioner No.1 and Bhima Ram, Fitter, who had visited his house at about 7.00 a.m., on 03.03.2016. Bhima Ram, Fitter, started argument with him and his family members in connection with drinking water. Petitioner No.1, who was also an employee of IPH Department also started abusing respondent No.2 and called him by his caste. On being objected, respondent No.2 was given beatings with kick and fist blows. In the meanwhile, petitioners No.2 and 3 also arrived at the spot and started manhandling respondent No.2 after abusing him.

(f) Investigation in both the FIRs was carried out. In FIR No.17 of 2016, police presented challan under Sections 323 and 504 that too against petitioner No.1 only. Since, both the offences were triable by the Panchayat in accordance with provisions of Himachal Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, challan was presented before the concerned Panchayat i.e. Respondent No.3.

(g) As regards FIR No.18 of 2016, the police presented the challan against respondent No.2 before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Anni, District Kullu, H.P.

3. Petitioners have alleged that petitioner No.1 had presented himself once before respondent No.3 on 24.04.2018 in compliance to the summon received by him, but respondent No.3 had remained absent. It is further alleged they did not hear anything from respondent No.3 after 24.04.2018, however, they received summons from the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Anni, District Kullu, H.P., directing them to appear on 20.07.2019 in case titled as State vs. Vinod Kumar, under Sections 451 and 323 of the IPC.

4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the police had filed challan against petitioner No.1 only under Sections 504 and 323 of the IPC, which were exclusively triable by Gram Panchayat. Respondent No.2 in connivance with respondent No.3 had managed the transfer of case from jurisdiction of respondent No.3 to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st