CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16743 OF 2000 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure --------------- 1. Rajbansh Pandey , Son of Late Ramjanam Pandey 2. Manoj Kumar Pandey, Son of Rajbansh Pandey 3. Gopal Pandey Son of Late Ambika Pandey All residents of Village- Bharigwna, P.S. Ramgarh, District-Kaimur ( Bhabhua) ---- Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Sita Ram Paswan S/o Sukhan Paswan R/o Village- Bharigwna, P.S. Ramgarh, District-Kaimur ( Bhabhua) ------------------------------------ Opp.Parties. -------------- For the petitioners: S/Sri B.P.Pandey, Sr. Advocate Jagannath Singh, P.K.Sinha, and S.C.Giri, Advocates. For the State: Sri A.M.P.Mehta, A.P.P. ----------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar, J Three petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 27.5.1998 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabhua in G.R.No.563 of 1997 , arising out of Ramgarh P.S.Case No.63 of 1997 . By the said order, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Short fact of the case is that Opp.Party No.2 filed a written complaint before the Officer Incharge of Ramgarh ( Kaimur ) Police Station alleging therein that while he was looking after the orchard of one Nandraj Pandey, the petitioners came there and started to 2 pluck mangoes from the orchard , which was objected by the informant. Aggrieved with the objection raised by the informant, all the accused persons, who were armed with lathi, started assaulting the informant. It was further alleged that in the said occurrence, wrist watch of the informant had fallen down, which was taken away by one of the accused persons. On the basis of the written report of the informant, an F.I.R. vide Ramgarh P.S. Case No.63 of 1997 was registered for the offences under Sections 341,323,379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. In the case, as alleged, occurrence had taken place on 15.7.1997 and on the same day, F.I.R. was lodged. During the investigation, the allegation in respect of commission of offences under Sections 341,379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code was not found true. However, chargesheet was submitted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. After filing of the chargesheet , the learned Magistrate vide its order dated 27.5.1998 took cognizance of the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. While passing the order, the learned Magistrate recorded in its order dated 27.5.1998 that “the territorial jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat is cancelled”. 4. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition, which was admitted on 4.7.2000. While admitting ,this Court had directed that during the pendency of this application, further proceeding in Ramgarh P.S. Case No.63 /97, G.R.No.563/97 , T.R.No.838/99 pending in the court of S.D.J.M., Bhabhua shall remain stayed and order of stay is still continuing. At the very outset , Sri B.P.Pandey, learned Senior Counsel 3 appearing on behalf of the petitioners has argued that the order of cognizance was barred under Section 468 (2) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure . It was further submitted that while order of cognizance was passed, Gram Panchayat in the locality was already in existence. It was submitted that the learned Magistrate without assigning any reason was not authorized to divest the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat. It was alternatively argued that since the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence, in the present case which is of trivial nature, i.e. offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, for which maximum sentence is one year, it would not be appropriate to direct the petitioners to participate in the proceeding before the court below after lapse of more than about 13 years from the date of occurrence. It was further submitted that since the allegation of the informant in respect of commission of offence under Sections 379 and 341 was itself found untrue, rather false by the Investigating Officer,the allegation of commission of offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code can be considered as beyond shadow of doubt. Sri Pandey, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that under the provisions of Gram Panchayat Ordinance, which was prevailing at the relevant time, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance of the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. It was submitted that the said offence is a non-cognizable offence and triable by the Gram Panchayat. It was further submitted that if the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate wanted to proceed with the case for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, he was required to 4 assign reason for withdrawing the case from the Gram Panchayat. While referring to the impugned order, he has argued that the learned Magistrate without assigning any reason, simply by mentioning that he is canceling the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat, has passed the impugned order, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. In this case, despite valid service of notice on Opp.Party no.2, he has preferred not to appear before this Court. 6. Sri A.M.P.Mehta, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. 7. Besides hearing learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl.Public Prosecution appearing on behalf of the State, I have perused the materials available on record. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly in view of the fact that in the case, occurrence had taken place in the month of May, 1997 and after the order of cognizance, this Court had stayed the proceeding before the court below on 4.7.2000 and the order of stay continued for more then 10 years, it would not be appropriate to direct the petitioners to participate in the proceeding before the court below for such a trivial occurrence. Moreover, while the learned Magistrate had contemplated to cancel the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat, it was required on his part to assign the reason .The order impugned does not indicate any reason , and as such, this Court is of the view that the order of cognizance is not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, the order of cognizance dated 27.5.1998 passed 5 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabhua in G.R.No.563 of 1997 is hereby set aside and the petition stands allowed. Patna High Court,Patna Dated : 14th July,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/ N.A.F.R. ( Rakesh Kumar, J)