JUDGMENT T. R. Handa, J.—A complaint under Sections 447/506 of the Indian Penal Code was filed in the court of judicial Magistrate, Jogindernagar, by Shri Kanshi Ram against Shri Lachhman and others. Since both the offences as mentioned in the complaint were triable by the Naya Panchayat, the learned Judicial Magistrate vide his order dated 21-5-1977 transferred that complaint for disposal to the Gram Panchayat in terms of Section 207 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1968, It appears that the Gram Panchayat after recording some evidence formed the view that it was not in a position to adjudicate upon that complaint and hence vide its order dated 22-8-1980 it forwarded that complaint to the Judicial Magistrate for adjudication. This was done by the Gram Panchayat purporting to act under the provisions of Section 201 (c) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1968. The Judicial Magistrate, however, was of the view that the order of the Gram Panchayat sending back the complaint to the court for disposal was a vague one and hence he once again sent back the complaint to the Gram Panchayat for disposal The Gram Panchayat, however, reiterated its earlier view and again sent back the complaint to the Judicial Magistrate for disposal. 2. The aforesaid complainant Shri Kanshi Ram had filed another complaint against Shri Bardu and others under Sections 147/447/427/379/506 of the Indian Penal Code in the same court which was registered as Criminal Case No. 132. of 1977. The judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that a prima facie case under Sections 447/427 only of the Indian Penal Code was made out against the accused persons and since both these offences were exclusively triable by the Gram Panchayat, he vide his order dated 23-2-1978 forwarded the complaint to Gram Panchayat, Utpur, for disposal in accordance with law. In this case again the Gram Panchayat after recording some evidence observed that it was not in a position to adjudicate upon the complaint and hence vide its order dated 22-3-1930 it sent back the complaint to the Judicial Magistrate for disposal. It may be observed that the subject matter of dispute in both the complaints was the same land and there was some civil litigation pending between the parties with respect to its title and possession at the time when these complaints were filed. It may be observed that the subject matter of dispute in both the complaints was the same land and there was some civil litigation pending between the parties with respect to its title and possession at the time when these complaints were filed. It was perhaps in view of this civil litigation and the rival claims of the parties with respect to the title and possession of the land in dispute that the Gram Panchayat fait it difficult to adjudicate upon the complaints. The learned judicial Magistrate was, however of the view that the Gram Panchayat had sent back the complaint to the court only because it wanted to avoid its responsibilities and to abdicate its functions to the Court. 3. It is in these circumstances that the Judicial Magistrate had made a reference to this Court in each of the two cases after framing the following points for consideration : "1, Whether the Gram Panchayat has got jurisdiction to return the complaint under Section 201 (c) of the Act arbitrarily and whimsically, without stating the reasons and setting out the complex nature of the case ? 2. Whether the Gram Panchayat is not supposed to heed to the directions of the court of the Judicial Magistrate/Sub-Judge, being Appellate Courts ? 3. If answer to point No. 2 is in the negative, whether the defaulting functionary of the Gram Panchayat can be proceeded against for contempt in the face of Section 235 of the Act ? 4. If answer to point No. 3 is in the negative, what is the remedy available for the Appellate Courts to deal with such a situation of disobedience and non-observance of the directions of the courts ?" 4 On receipt of these references in this Court the same were placed before My Lord the then Chief Justice on 29th April, 1983. My Lord the then Chief justice passed an order on that date directing that these references be registered as criminal references under Section 395 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In pursuance to that order the aforesaid references were registered as Criminal References Nos. 4 and 5 of 1983, 5, A bare perusal of the provisions of Section 39.S (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would suggest that a Judicial Magistrate has no power to make a reference to the High Court. In pursuance to that order the aforesaid references were registered as Criminal References Nos. 4 and 5 of 1983, 5, A bare perusal of the provisions of Section 39.S (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would suggest that a Judicial Magistrate has no power to make a reference to the High Court. A reference under this sub-section can only be made by a Court of Session or a Metropolitan Magistrate. The only provision under which a Judicial Magistrate can make a reference to the High Court is found in sub-section (1) of Section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which reads : "395. (1) Where any Court is satisfied that a case pending before it involves a question as to the validity of any Act, Ordinance or Regulation or of any provision contained in an Act, Ordinance or Regulation, the determination of which is necessary for the disposal of the case, and is of opinion that such Act, Ordinance, Regulation or provision is invalid or inoperative, but has not been so declared by the High Court to which that Court is subordinate or by the Supreme Court, the Court shall state a case setting out its opinion and the reasons therefor, and refer the same for the decision of the High Court.” 6. Since the conditions as mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 395 reproduced above, are not satisfied in the instant cases, this provision cannot be invoked for entertaining the instant references made by the Judicial Magistrate. In the absence of any other provision entitling the Judicial Magistrate to make a reference to this Court, I must hold that the references as made by the Judicial Magistrate are not maintainable. This Court, therefore, is not required to answer the points as raised by the Judicial Magistrate. 7. In the circumstances as appear in the instant cases, the only course open to the judicial Magistrate was to pass orders as he deemed fit. If any party felt aggrieved by such orders, it was open to that party to seek its remedy under the law to challenge the same. It was certainly not open to the Magistrate to make references of this type to this Court. The references being not maintainable in law, are returned to the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Jogindernagar unanswered. Order accordingly. ………………..