Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1966 DIGILAW 257 (ALL)

Radhe Lal v. State

1966-07-15

GYANENDRA KUMAR

body1966
ORDER Gyanendra Kumar, J. - A money suit filed by the Applicant (Radhe Lal) was pending in the Nyaya Panchayat Sihani Kalan against one Akbar Khan. The latter had appointed his brother Wahid to do parvi on his behalf. On 25-9-63 when the case was taken up by the Panchayat, the Applicant challenged their authority insulted and abused the Panches. The Panches concerned as well as the Nyaya Sarpanch presented a complaint before the SDM, Ghaziabad u/s 228 IPC. The SDM transferred the case to the Judicial Magistrate, who summoned the accused (Radhe Lal). He challenged the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to entertain the complaint interalia on the ground that it was exclusively cognizable by the Nyaya Panchayat. The Magistrate did not accept this contention, whereupon the Applicant went up in revision before the Sessions Judge, who dismissed the same by his order dated 23-9-1964; hence this revision. 2. Mr. D.P. Mittal has raised several points. His first contention is that u/s 94-A of the UP Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) if any person has intentionally insulted a Nyaya Panchayat or any member thereof, during judicial proceedings, the Nyaya Panchayat may at any time before rising take cognizance of it and impose a fine not exceeding Rs. 5/-. Mr. D.P. Mittal has invited my attention to the provisions of Section 52 of the Act which lays down: The following offences as well as abetments of and attempts to commit such offences, if committed within the jurisdiction of a Nyaya Panchayat shall be cognizable by such Nyaya Panchayat. ............ (f) any offence under this Act or any rule made thereunder. 3. In this connection reference may also be made to the provisions of Section 55(1) of the Act, which runs thus: After a Nyaya Panchayat has been established for any area, no court except as otherwise provided in this Act shall take cognizance of any case triable by such Nyaya Panchayat. 4. Mr. Mittal argues that reading Sections 94-A, 52(f) and 55(1) of the Act, the impugned action of Radhey Lal in offering insult to the Panches was exclusively cognizable by the Nyaya Panchayat, u/s 94-A, of the Act, as it is one of the offences referred to in Section 52(f). According to him, no other court could possibly take cognizance of this matter inasmuch as it was solely triable by the Nyaya Panchayat. According to him, no other court could possibly take cognizance of this matter inasmuch as it was solely triable by the Nyaya Panchayat. In other words the SDM Ghaziabad or the Judicial Magistrate before whom the complaint of the panches was pending at that time, had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case and proceed with the matter. The argument is quite plausible. 5. It has been urged on behalf of the State that the insult offered to the members of the Nyaya, Panchayat was of grievous nature. Thus the offence committed by the Applicant was one for which the Nyaya Panchayat could not obviously award adequate punishment, beyond a fine of only Rs. 5/-. Further in view of the fact that the, members of the Panchayat were party to the case, they perhaps, considered it expedient in the interest of justice to lodge a complaint rather than to take action themselves. These considerations might have weighed with the panches, but the provisions of Section 94-A and 52(f) read with Section 55(1) of the Act are absolute and mandatory. Hence the Nyaya Panchayat itself had to take initial cognizance of the insult, with the result that the Panches could not start a new case or lodge a complaint in the Court of SDM or any other Magistrate. As stated above, the initial cognizance had to be taken by the Nyaya Panchayat itself and then alone it could if necessary "transfer the same to the court of competent jurisdiction" (see Section 58(b) and (c) of the Act). In this view of the matter the Panches could not have instituted an altogether fresh complaint before the SDM on any of the two grounds mentioned by the State Counsel. I find that the complaint filed by the Nyaya Panches before the SDM Ghaziabad, which is now pending before the judicial Magistrate, is wholly illegal and un-entertainable. 6. I therefore allow the revision and quash the complaint and proceedings pending against the Applicant. 7. Nevertheless a Nyaya Panchayat is a court subordinate to the High Court. The Applicant appears to have committed gross contempt of the Nyaya Panchayat by insulting and abusing its members. As a court of record, this Court can always take cognizance of the contempt of its subordinate courts. 7. Nevertheless a Nyaya Panchayat is a court subordinate to the High Court. The Applicant appears to have committed gross contempt of the Nyaya Panchayat by insulting and abusing its members. As a court of record, this Court can always take cognizance of the contempt of its subordinate courts. Now that the complaint dated 25-3-1963 filed by the Panches regarding the misconduct of the Applicant has been brought to my notice, I direct that the original complaint dated 25-9-1963 be brought on the record of the contempt case and a show cause notice be issued to Radhey Lal Applicant along with a copy of the aforesaid complaint. He may file a counter affidavit or contest by 31-8-1966, on which date the case shall be put up for further orders.