IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 56 of 2007 Reserved on: 27.3.2008 Date of decision: 24.4.2008 Deep Kumar & Ors. ... Petitioners Versus The State of H.P. & Ors. … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Law Officer, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, vice counsel for respondents No. 6 & 7. V.K. Ahuja, J.: This is a petition filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Una, H.P. dated 10.5.2007. Briefly stated the facts of the case relevant for the present discussion are that a case is pending against the petitioners and proforma respondents No. 8 and 9 before Gram Panchayat Budhan, Distt. Una. A prayer was made by petitioner No. 1 before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, for withdrawing the challan from the Gram Panchayat, Budhan, on the ground that there has been inordinate delay of more than 8 years of the case. It appears that the learned trial Court issued notice to the Gram Panchayat, heard the parties and after making 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 reference of the decisions of the Apex Court in this regard, it did not allow the application for withdrawal of the case but passed an order that the Gram Panchayat shall dispose of the case within a period of three months from today in accordance with the Section 59 of H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1995. The order was passed on 10.5.2007. Being aggrieved by the said order. The petitioners filed the present petition before this Court for quashing of the said order and the present petition was filed on 30.6.2007. Panchayat record was summoned and a perusal of the same shows that after the case was sent back by the learned trial Court to the Gram Panchayat concerned and the petitioners in the case, namely, petitioners No. 1 to 4 and proforma respondents 8 and 9 did not put up appearance but the order sheet dated 9.7.2007 shows that out of the 4 accused in that case, namely, petitioners No. 1 to 4 were present and proforma respondent No. 8 Naresh Kumar and proforma respondent No. 9 Tulsi Ram did not put up appearance before the Panchayat. When the Panchayat asked the other co-accused including the petitioners about the presence of those persons, they told that told that they cannot call them and if the Panchayat wants them, it can call them. A perusal of the record shows that notices were issued to the Commanding Officer of respondent No. 8 as well as to respondent No. 9 to appear and in the proceedings of the Panchayat, statement of the mother of Naresh Kumar as well his wife were recorded that they are not aware about his address and they cannot call him. The above discussion only concludes that only one inference that since all the accused persons did not put up appearance before the 3 Panchayat, it was not possible for the Panchayat to proceed with the case or dispose of the case within a period of three months as directed by the Court. The proceedings before the Panchayat cannot be compared with the proceedings pending before a Judicial Magistrate since a Judicial Magistrate is competent to issue warrants for production of the accused persons but the Panchayat has no powers and in case accused does not turn up, it has to make a request to the Judicial Magistrate for compelling the accused persons to appear before it which takes time and delays the case. Further once the accused persons are not putting appearance regularly and the Panchayat has not been able to secure the presence of two accused, co-accused of present petitioners namely respondents No. 8 and 9, they cannot take up the plea of delay which is attributable to the accused and not to the complainant or the Panchayat. Therefore, no case is made out for quashing the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 10.5.2007, however steps shall be taken by the Gram Panchayat to dispose of the case as early as possible and the petitioners and proforma respondents No. 8 and 9 are required to put up appearance on the date being fixed by the Gram Panchayat so that the case can be disposed of as early as possible. However, while disposing of this petition, it is clarified that if there is any provision for withdrawal of the case from the Gram Panchayat and trial by the Judicial Magistrate, the petitioners may file proper application and the same shall be considered on merits by the Court concerned. With these observations, the petition is dismissed since there is no merit in the case. The petitioners and proforma respondents No. 8 and 9 shall appear on a date fixed by Panchayat or on the notice 4 issued by the Panchayat for their appearance. Record of the Panchayat be returned forthwith, to Law Officer of State. Cr.MPs No. 292 and 472 of 2007: In view of the dismissal of the main petition, both these applications also stand disposed of. ( V.K. Ahuja ), April 24, 2008 Judge (BSS)