Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Gokhran Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others - Respondents
Cr.MMO No. 295 of 2020
Decided on : 15-12-2023
Section 482 - Criminal Procedure Code - F.I.R. No. 152 of 2018 - Sections 341, 323, 325 read with Section 34 of IPC - H.P. Panchayat Raj Act - [Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 482 of Cr.P.C., Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Sections 341, 323, 325, and 34 of IPC, Section 30 and 37 of the H.P. Panchayat Raj Act] - The court discussed the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat, the exclusivity of jurisdiction under the H.P. Panchayat Raj Act, and the permissibility of trying cross-cases by the Higher Court. The court also highlighted the limitations of its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and emphasized the need for cross-cases to be tried together to avoid conflicting findings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought directions to submit a charge-sheet in a case registered for offences under Sections 341, 323, and 325 read with Section 34 of IPC in a competent Court instead of the Gram Panchayat. The victim challenged the deletion of Section 325 of IPC and sought both cases to be tried by the same Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that it cannot adjudicate on the truthfulness of the allegations and the sufficiency of evidence under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It allowed the transfer of the case from the Gram Panchayat to the Court of a Magistrate to ensure both cases are tried together.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat, permissibility of trying cross-cases by the Higher Court, and the limitations of the court's power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that it cannot examine the truthfulness, sufficiency, and admissibility of evidence under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It also highlighted the need for cross-cases to be tried together to avoid conflicting findings.
Final Decision: The petition was partly allowed, and the case was ordered to be transferred from the Gram Panchayat to the Court of a Magistrate to ensure both cases are tried together.
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of directions to the respondents for submitting a charge-sheet in case F.I.R. No. 152 of 2018 registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 325 read with Section 34 of IPC in the competent Court of law instead of sending it to the Gram Panchayat Tikkar.
2. It has been asserted that F.I.R. Nos. 150 of 2018 and 152 of 2018 were registered at Police Station Sadar Hamirpur on 05.06.2018 regarding the same incident. F.I.R. No. 152 of 2018 was registered on the statement of Dalip Singh and F.I.R. No. 150 of 2018 was registered on the information of Gian Chand Bhatia. Gian Chand subsequently made a complaint to the police stating that injury no. 2 sustained by Gokhran Devi had occurred before the incident. The Investigating officer approached the Medical Officer, who opined on 17.11.2018 that duration of the injury no.2 on the person of the victim Gokhran Devi was more than 3 weeks. Initially, injury No. 2 was stated to be grievous; however, the said injury was stated to be simple after more than 5½ months of the issuance of the initial opinion. Investigating Officer deleted Section 325 of IPC and filed the challan before the Gram Panchayat Tikkar Tehsil and District Hamirpur, H.P. The victim approached the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Court No.1, Hamirpur by filing an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. against the deletion of Section 325 of IPC; however, this application was dismissed by the Magistrate. The victim also made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur but no action was taken. The opinion dated 27.11.2018, of the Medical Officer is contrary to the facts of the case. The victim was examined on 05.06.2018 and 06.06.2018. Her arm was plastered. The Investigating Officer erred in deleting the Section 325 of IPC. Both the cross cases are to be tried by the same Court and it is not permissible to try one case by the Court of Judicial Magistrate and the other by Gram Panchayat. Hence, the present petition seeking direction to withdraw the case from Gram Panchayat Tikkar, Tehsil & District Hamirpur, and file it before the competent Court of law.
3. A reply was stated to be filed by the State/respondents no.1 to 3 but the same is not on the record.
4. The petition was opposed by respondent no.5 by filing a reply making a preliminary submission regarding the lack of maintainability. It was asserted that the order sending the case to Gram Panchayat was not challenged as per law. The Gram Panchayat has exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the cases mentioned in the schedule of the H.P. Panchayat Raj Act. It is not permissible to try the cases cognizable by Gram Panchayat by some other Court. Gokhran Devi, etc. were aggressors and they had lodged a false F.I.R. Hence, it was prayed that the petition be dismissed.
5. I have heard Mr Kashmir Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr R.P.Singh learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents nos. 1 to 3 and Mr Sanjay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no.5
6. Mr. Kashmir Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the F.I.Rs arise out of the same incident; therefore, they should be tried by one Court. It is not permissible to send one F.I.R. to Gram Panchayat and another to the Court of Judicial Magistrate for trial.The Investigating Officer erred in seeking the opinion after 5½ months and the Medical Officer erred in concluding that the injury was not sustained during the incident but before the incident. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed, deletion of Section 325 of IPC be set aside and both the F.I.Rs. be ordered to be tried by the same Court
7. Mr. R.P.Singh learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents no. 1 to 3 submitted that the police conducted the investigation and submitted the report to the Cour
The court emphasized the limitations of its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the need for cross-cases to be tried together to avoid conflicting findings.
The court affirmed the legitimacy of transferring related FIRs for consolidated trial to avoid conflicting judgments, upholding inherent jurisdiction to quash FIRs only in case of evident abuse of pr....
The Magistrate has the power to commit a case to the Sessions Court if it ought to be tried by the Sessions Court, even if the case is not exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. Additionally, int....
Section 64 of Act provides that Gram Panchayat shall report the fact if accused fails to appear or cannot be found, to nearest Magistrate.
Merely because three separate FIRs have been filed do not mean that they could not be clubbed together and one charge-sheet could not be filed.
The court held that distinct allegations in separate FIRs do not warrant a joint trial under Section 323 of Cr.P.C., affirming the trial court's authority to manage case separations based on differin....
The High Court's power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences, even post-conviction, to secure the ends of justice.
The right to speedy trial for the accused and the imprudence of keeping the proceedings pending based on the status of another case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
