Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 261 (HP)

Susham Lata v. Jugal Kishore

2014-03-25

RAJIV SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This petition is directed against the order dated 28.12.2012 rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.1, Hamirpur in Panchayat Appeal No.3 of 2011. 2. "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondent No.2 alleged that the petitioner caused damage to her house. She put tarpaulin to protect her property. However, the same was torn by the labourers of the petitioner. Respondent No.2 reported the matter before the Gram Panchayat, Aghar. Notice was issued to the petitioner on 28.2.2011 by the Gram Panchayat Aghar. The petitioner filed an application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur for seeking transfer of the case from Gram Panchayat Aghar to any other adjoining Gram Panchayat along with an application for staying the proceedings of the case titled Kusum Lata v. Susham Lata pending before the Gram Panchayat Aghar. Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.III, Hamirpur, stayed the proceedings vide order dated 4.5.2011. A notice was issued to the petitioner on 28.5.2011 informing her that though she had agreed before the Gram Panchayat on 16.4.2011 that she would give a new tarpaulin or its price to respondent No.2 within one month, however, she failed to do so. She was further granted fifteen days' time to do the needful and was ordered to remain present before the Gram Panchayat on 14.6.2011. The Gram Panchayat vide decision dated 14.6.2011 imposed a fine of Rs.25/- on the petitioner under Sections 288 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.1, Hamirpur, who dismissed the same on 28.12.2012. Hence, the present petition. 4. What emerges from the facts, enumerated here-in-above is, that respondent No.2 filed a complaint against the petitioner before the Gram Panchayat Aghar that the petitioner damaged her house. Respondent No.2 in order to protect the property put a tarpaulin, but the same was torn by labourers of the petitioner. The petitioner agreed before the Gram Panchayat that she would give new tarpaulin or its price to respondent No.2. However, she failed to do so. 5. Ms. Archna Dutt, learned Advocate, has vehemently argued that since the proceedings were stayed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.III, Hamirpur on 4.5.2011, further proceedings before the Gram Panchayat could not be continued. 6. However, she failed to do so. 5. Ms. Archna Dutt, learned Advocate, has vehemently argued that since the proceedings were stayed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.III, Hamirpur on 4.5.2011, further proceedings before the Gram Panchayat could not be continued. 6. Copy of the order, dated 4.5.2011 was applied for on 13.5.2011 and was supplied to the petitioner on the same date. The petitioner has not led any tangible evidence to establish that the copy of the stay order was received by the Gram Panchayat Aghar. According to the petitioner, Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat was biased. Merely that the petitioner has also contested the ward election in the Gram Panchayat would not establish that the Pradhan was biased. The petitioner has alleged in the application seeking transfer of the case that the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Aghar had brought the police to her house. Neither any date nor any month or year has been given when the Pradhan visited her house with the police. Allegations leveled against the Pradhan are vague and sketchy. The petitioner has failed to prove that the Pradhan was biased towards her. Petitioner has been given ample opportunity to lead her evidence and to comply with the orders of the Gram Panchayat. Where bias of an adjudicator/Judge is alleged, it has to be established in the facts and circumstances of every case. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 28.12.2012 passed by the learned trial court. 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis made here-in-above, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. Petition dismissed.