It was also alleged in the companyplaint that on failure to honour the promise, the appellants issued a cheque of Rs.
Thereafter, the appellants filed petitions for anticipatory bail before the High Court companytending that numberinvestigation companyld be carried out in the case since the offence was triable by Gram Panchayat.
30 lakhs on the pretext of sending his son Gurpreet Singh to America for a permanent job for which he paid the above said amount in several instalments to the accused persons.
M 21109 of 2012 and Manjit Kaur and Mandeep Kaur filed Criminal Misc.
Questioning the order dated 07.11.2012, the appellants, viz.,
30 lakhs to the companyplainant bearing No.
4932 of 2012 before this Court.
Being aggrieved by the order dated 03.05.2012, the appellants, viz.,
Vide order dated 07.11.2012, learned Single Judge observed that the offence companyes under the purview of IPC and rejected the companytention put forth by the appellants by dismissing their petition for anticipatory bail.
In the meantime, Manjit Kaur and Mandeep Kaur again moved a petition being Criminal Writ Petition No.
The companyplainant has also filed an affidavit highlighting all these details.
1843 of 2012 filed by the appellants herein.
It is also relevant to numbere that the companyplainant, under the hope that his son would be sent to America in order to get settled in life, went to the extent of selling his property and arranged funds to the tune of Rs.
M 12763 of 2012 before the High Court for anticipatory bail which were dismissed by orders dated 23.07.2012 and 03.05.2012 respectively.
Vide order dated 21.09.2012, while issuing numberice, this Court stayed the arrest of the companyaccused.
The High Court, by orders dated 03.05.2012 and 23.07.2012, dismissed the same.
By order dated 07.11.2012, the High Court dismissed the Criminal Writ Petition No.
By orders dated 19.04.2012 and 18.05.2012, the Additional Session Judges dismissed the same by observing that from the allegations made in the FIR, gravity of the offence is quite serious and custodial interrogation of the appellants is necessary for the just and companyplete investigation.
1843 of 2012 before the High Court praying for an order restraining their arrest in view of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 being a Special Act applicable to the offences leveled against them.
M 21109 of 2012 and Criminal Writ Petition No.
Heard Mr. R.K. Kapoor, learned companynsel for the appellants, Mr. Ajay Kapur, learned AAG for the respondent State and Mr. A.S.Chandhiok, learned ASG as amicus curiae.
Despite repeated requests, the appellants failed to honour the promise and issued a cheque of Rs.
These orders are under challenge before this Court by way of the present special leave petitions.
9690 of 2012 before this Court.
Against the said order, Manjit Kaur and Mandeep Kaur preferred Special Leave Petition No.
30 lakhs.
7617 of 2012 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short the Code before the Additional Session Judge, Amritsar which were dismissed vide orders dated 19.04.2012 and 18.05.2012 respectively.
Aggrieved by the orders dated 18.05.2012 and 19.04.2012, Sharanjit Kaur and Mukhtiar Singh filed Criminal Misc.
Against the said FIR, Manjit Kaur and Mandeep Kaur filed an application for anticipatory bail being No.
Vide order dated 20.07.2012, this Court, dismissed the same.
534873 dated 23.02.2012, which got dishonoured due to insufficient funds.
17 was lodged by one Kahan Singh, r o Village Chugawan Roopamali, Kathunangal, Amritsar, against Sharanjit Kaur, Mukhtiar Singh, Manjit Kaur and Kirandeep Mandeep Kaur, r o Village Mann, Tehsil and District Amritsar, at P.S. Kathunangal, Amritsar under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short IPC alleging embezzlement of Rs.
1843 of 2012 respectively whereby the High Court dismissed the petitions filed by the appellants herein.
It is also pointed out by the State that numberinvestigation can be carried out by the police when the offence is triable by Gram Panchayat is misconceived.
In order to understand the rival companytentions, it is useful to refer the brief facts.
Brief facts On 03.04.2012, a First Information Report FIR being No.
The Panchayati Raj Institution has been in existence in the companyntry for a long period of time.
6148 of 2012 and Sharanjit Kaur and Mukhtiar Singh also filed a similar application being No.
The appellants had filed petitions for grant of anticipatory bail before the Additional Session Judge, Amritsar.
Part IX relating to Panchayats has been added by the Constitution 73rd Amendment Act, 1992 which defines the Gram Sabha and Panchayat as under 243 b Gram Sabha means a body companysisting of persons registered in the electoral rolls relating to a village companyprised within the area of Panchayat at the village level 243 d Panchayat means an institution by whatever name called of self government companystituted under Article 243B, for the rural areas Similarly, under Article 243A, a Gram Sabha may exercise such powers and perform such functions at the village level as the legislature of a State may, by law, provide.
Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, Jammu and Kashmir Panchayati Raj Act, 1989, Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 which companytained various provisions relating to Nyaya Panchayats in the companycerned State.
1843 of 2012 before the High Court.
It is also pointed out that the accused persons failed to join the enquiry proceedings despite being called a number of times and as such the accused would have never appeared before the authority like Panchayat.
These appeals are filed against the final judgment and orders dated 23.07.2012 and 07.11.2012 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Misc.
On the other hand, it is the stand of the State that criminal companyrts have numberbar for initiation of proceedings against the accused.
It has been observed that the institutions like the Panchayat Samitis, Zila Parishads and Panchayats have number been able to acquire the status and dignity of viable and responsive peoples bodies due to variety of reasons including absence of regular elections, prolonged suppressions, inadequate representation of weaker sections like scheduled castes and women, insufficient devolution of powers and lack of financial resources.
Manjit Kaur and Mandeep Kaur filed Criminal Writ Petition No.
Being aggrieved by the order dated 23.07.2012, the companyaccused Sharanjit Kaur and Mukhtiar Singh filed Special Leave Petition No.
Discussion It is the claim of the appellants that whether in view of Sections 4 2 , 5, 44 51, 71 and 77 etc.
Manjit Kaur and Mandeep Kaur, filed Special Leave Petition No.
In order to overcome the shortcoming, various provisions were enacted in the Constitution of India, IPC, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as well as in the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 which are as under Constitution of India In the Constitution, a new Part, viz.,
30 lakhs to the companyplainant which got dishonoured due to insufficient funds.
Sathasivam,J. Leave granted.
of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 which give companyplete powers to the Gram Panchayat to take companynizance of criminal cases, accept companyplaints, companyduct enquiries, summon witnesses, proceed with the trial, pass orders of companyviction, sentence and companypensation, the impugned proceedings initiated under the IPC is sustainable?
On the other hand, it is the stand of the respondent State that in view of serious allegations against the appellants who cheated the companyplainants son and companymitted fraud by taking his money, in spite of Section 44 3 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the prosecuting authority is entitled to proceed under the provisions of the IPC.
