JUDGMENT D.P. Sinha, J. The petitioners have moved this application in the following circumstances. On 19.1.1972 the opposite party filed a complaint before the Sarpanch of Mubarakpur Gram Panchayat, situate within the jurisdiction of Barh Police Station, in the district of Patna in which he alleged, among other things, that on 19.1.1972 the petitioners looted his masuri and keraw crops standing over 3-1/2 bighas of land and when he and his brother protested, they were threatened with assault it was alleged that on account of the loot the opposite party suffered a loss of Rs. 500/- The opposite party was not examined by the Sarpanch as by his order dated 16.2.72 he held that the value of the property stolen being Rs. 500/- was beyond the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat. Having held so he returned the complaint to the opposite party In the mean time on 5.2.72 the opposite party filed an application before the Sub-divisional Magistrate under sections 70 and 73 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Sub-divisional Magistrate made an order staying further proceeding before the Gram Cut-cherry and also directed the application pending before the Gram Cut-cherry to be placed before him. On receipt of the order the Sarpanch sent a report dated 21.2.72 to the Sub-divisional Magistrate that no case was pending before the Gram Panchayat and the complaint of the opposite party had been returned to him, as the case was beyond the jurisdiction of the Gram Cut-cherry. On receipt of that report the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate passed the following order, which is being assailed in this application. “3.4.72-Petitioner flies Haxri. Report from Gram Panchayat has been received. Heard and perused report of the Sarpanch. The Sarpanch in his endorsement dated 16-2-72 has reported that the case was beyond his jurisdiction while the case was filed before him on 19.1.72. The case therefore is apparently beyond jurisdiction of Gram Cut-cherry. This case is therefore transferred to Sri M. M. Verma, M. M. 1st Class for disposal.” It is quite obvious that in the eye of law there was no proceeding before the Gram Cut-cherry as the complaint, which had been filed before it, was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Gram Cut-cherry and therefore, the Sarpanch rightly did not proceed in the matter. According to clause (a) of rule 43 of the Gram Cut-cherry Rules, 1962 in such a case the Sarpanch should have summarily dismissed the complaint and informed the complainant of his order forthwith. Instead of doing that he returned the complaint. The opposite party instead of filing the complaint before the Sub-divisional Magistrate moved him under the provisions of sections 70 and 73 of the Act. On a reference to section 73 of the Act, it would appear that the provisions of the said section have absolutely no application to the facts of this case. The Sub-divisional Magistrate could proceed under that section only if there had been a miscarriage of justice or if there was an apprehension of miscarriage of Justice in a case pending before the Gram Cut-cherry. No such question had arisen. The Sarpanch had rightly declined to proceed in the matter which was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Gram Cut-cherry, and, therefore, there was no question of any miscarriage of justice or any apprehension of miscarriage of justice in the case. So far as section 70 of the Act, was concerned that section too had no application to the facts under consideration. Under that section the Sub-divisional Magistrate can withdraw a case pending before a Gram Cut-cherry, if, for reasons to be recorded by him in writing, he is of opinion that such case ought not to be tried or heard by the Bench of the Gram Cut-cherry and in that case he may try and hear the case either himself or transfer it to another Magistrate etc. This section obviously presumes that the proceeding before the Gram Cut-cherry in respect of which it applies is within the jurisdiction i.e. within the competence of the Gram Cut-cherry. If the proceeding is beyond the jurisdiction of the Gram Cut-cherry, then it would be void ab initio and there can be no question of withdrawing to himself such a case and trying the same .or transferring it for trial to another Magistrate. If a proceeding was void ab initio, it would remain void even if it is taken before the Sub-divisional Magistrate. If a proceeding was void ab initio, it would remain void even if it is taken before the Sub-divisional Magistrate. The mere fact that he says that such a proceeding is transferred to his own file will not cure the invalidity and it will not enable him to ignore the provisions of the law as laid down in Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which applies to this case. It would further appear that in this case no proceeding was pending before the Gram Cut-cherry on the date the Sub-divisional Magistrate passed the impugned order and he himself clearly held that the complaint was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat. In the circumstances there was no case validly instituted before him which could be transferred to the Munsif Magistrate for disposal. It has already been mentioned that although the complaint of the opposite party had been returned by the Sarpanch to him, it had not been presented before the Sub-divisional Magistrate for necessary action. In the circumstances, it would appear that the order of the Magistrate date 3.4.72 was beyond his jurisdiction and it is, therefore, fit to be quashed. 2. The application is allowed and the order dated 3.4.72 is quashed. It would, however, be open to the opposite party, if so advised, to file a complaint before a competent Magistrate and if such a complaint is filed, the Magistrate shall deal with it in accordance with the law. Application allowed.