Page 1

REPORTABLE     

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.   811        OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 6746 of 2012)

Sharanjit Kaur & Anr.               .... Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Punjab                                               .... Respondent(s)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.   812         OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 9690 of 2012)

J U D G M E N T

P.Sathasivam,J.

1) Leave granted.

2) 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.  

No. M-21109 of 2012 and Criminal Writ Petition No. 1843 of  

2012  respectively  whereby  the  High  Court  dismissed  the  

petitions filed by the appellants herein.

3) Brief facts:

1

Page 2

a) On 03.04.2012, a  First  Information Report (FIR) being  

No. 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. 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.  

It was also alleged in the complaint that on failure to honour  

the promise, the appellants issued a cheque of Rs. 30 lakhs  

to the complainant bearing No. 534873 dated 23.02.2012,  

which got dishonoured due to insufficient funds.  

b) Against  the  said  FIR,  Manjit  Kaur  and  Mandeep  Kaur  

filed an application for anticipatory bail  being No. 6148 of  

2012  and  Sharanjit  Kaur  and  Mukhtiar  Singh  also  filed  a  

similar application being No. 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  

2

Page 3

dismissed  vide  orders  dated  19.04.2012  and  18.05.2012  

respectively.   

c) Aggrieved  by  the  orders  dated  18.05.2012  and  

19.04.2012, Sharanjit Kaur and Mukhtiar Singh filed Criminal  

Misc.  No. M-21109 of 2012 and Manjit  Kaur  and Mandeep  

Kaur  filed  Criminal  Misc.  No.  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.  

d) Against the said order, Manjit Kaur and Mandeep Kaur  

preferred Special Leave Petition No. 4932 of 2012 before this  

Court.  Vide order dated 20.07.2012, this Court, dismissed  

the same.   

e) Being aggrieved by the order dated 23.07.2012, the co-

accused  Sharanjit  Kaur  and  Mukhtiar  Singh  filed  Special  

Leave Petition No. 6746 of 2012 before this Court.  Vide order  

dated 21.09.2012, while issuing notice, this Court stayed the  

arrest of the co-accused.   

f) In the meantime, Manjit Kaur and Mandeep Kaur again  

moved a petition being Criminal  Writ  Petition No. 1843 of  

2012 before the High Court praying for an order restraining  

3

Page 4

their arrest in view of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994  

being a Special Act applicable to the offences leveled against  

them.   

g) By order dated 07.11.2012, the High Court  dismissed  

the  Criminal  Writ  Petition  No.  1843  of  2012  filed  by  the  

appellants herein.     

h) Questioning the order dated 07.11.2012, the appellants,  

viz.,  Manjit  Kaur  and  Mandeep  Kaur,  filed  Special  Leave  

Petition No. 9690 of 2012 before this Court.  

4) Heard  Mr.  R.K.  Kapoor,  learned  counsel  for  the  

appellants, Mr. Ajay Kapur, learned AAG for the respondent-

State and Mr. A.S.Chandhiok, learned ASG as amicus curiae.

Discussion:

5) It is the claim of the appellants that whether in view of  

Sections  4(2),  5,  44-51,  71  and  77  etc.  of  the  Punjab  

Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 which give complete powers to the  

Gram Panchayat to take cognizance of criminal cases, accept  

complaints, conduct enquiries, summon witnesses, proceed  

with  the  trial,  pass  orders  of  conviction,  sentence  and  

compensation, the impugned proceedings initiated under the  

4

Page 5

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  complainant’s  son  and  

committed  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.   

6) In order to understand the rival contentions, it is useful  

to refer the brief facts.  The appellants had filed petitions for  

grant of anticipatory bail before the Additional Session Judge,  

Amritsar.  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  complete  

investigation.  Thereafter,  the  appellants  filed  petitions  for  

anticipatory bail  before the High Court contending that no  

investigation  could  be  carried  out  in  the  case  since  the  

offence was triable by Gram Panchayat. The High Court, by  

orders  dated  03.05.2012  and  23.07.2012,  dismissed  the  

5

Page 6

same.  Being aggrieved by the order dated 03.05.2012, the  

appellants, viz., Manjit Kaur and Mandeep Kaur filed Criminal  

Writ Petition No. 1843 of 2012 before the High Court.  Vide  

order dated 07.11.2012, learned Single Judge observed that  

the offence comes under the purview of IPC and rejected the  

contention put  forth  by the  appellants  by dismissing their  

petition  for  anticipatory  bail.   These  orders  are  under  

challenge before this  Court  by way of the present  special  

leave petitions.  

7) It is also relevant to note that the complainant, 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.  30 lakhs.   Despite  

repeated  requests,  the  appellants  failed  to  honour  the  

promise  and  issued  a  cheque  of  Rs.  30  lakhs  to  the  

complainant which got dishonoured due to insufficient funds.  

The complainant has also filed an affidavit  highlighting all  

these details.  On the other hand, it is the stand of the State  

that criminal courts have no bar for initiation of proceedings  

against the accused.  It is also pointed out that the accused  

6

Page 7

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.  It  

is also pointed out by the State that no investigation can be  

carried out by the police when the offence is triable by Gram  

Panchayat is misconceived.   

8) Though the issue relates to dismissal of anticipatory bail  

applications  by  the  High  Court,  since  it  relates  to  an  

important question as to the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayats  

in a serious offence like Section 420 IPC and it is also brought  

to our notice that it  is a  common practice in the State of  

Punjab  being  adopted  by  the  agents  like  the  present  

appellants whereby innocent people and rustic villagers are  

duped, in order to lay down an authoritative pronouncement,  

we  requested  learned  Attorney  General  for  India  for  

assistance.   At  the  time  of  hearing,  Mr.  A.S.  Chandhiok,  

learned ASG assisted us by taking us through the objects and  

reasons,  relevant  provisions  of  the  Punjab  Panchayati  Raj  

Act, 1994 as well as provisions of the IPC.  

7

Page 8

9) The Panchayati Raj Institution  has been in existence in  

the country for a long period of time. It has been observed  

that  the  institutions  like  the  Panchayat  Samitis,  Zila  

Parishads and Panchayats have not been able to acquire the  

status and dignity of viable and responsive people’s 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.  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:

(A) Constitution of India:

(i) In the Constitution, a new Part, viz., 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 consisting of persons  registered  in  the  electoral  rolls  relating  to  a  village  comprised  within  the  area  of  Panchayat  at  the  village  level;

8

Page 9

“243(d)  Panchayat means  an  institution  (by  whatever  name called) of self government constituted under Article  243B, for the rural areas;”

(ii) 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.

(iii) Article 243N of the Constitution provides as under:-

“243N.  Continuance  of  existing  laws  and  Panchayats.  Notwithstanding  anything  in  this  Part,  any  provision of any law relating to Panchayats in force in a  State  immediately  before  commencement  of  the  Constitution (Seventy third Amendment) Act, 1992, which  is  inconsistent  with  the  provisions  of  this  part,  shall  continue to  be in  force until  amended or  repealed by a  competent legislature other competent  authority  or  until  the  expiration  of  one  year  from  such  commencement  whichever is earlier:

Provided  that  all  the  Panchayats  existing  immediately  before  such  commencement  shall  continue  till  the  expiration of their duration, unless sooner dissolved by a  resolution  passed  to  that  effect  by  the  Legislative  Assembly of that State or, in the case of a State having a  Legislative  Council,  by  each house  of  the  Legislature  of  that State.”

(B) Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994:

(i) Though in the State of Punjab, Punjab Gram Panchayat  

Act, 1952 was in existence which was repealed and a new  

Punjab Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 was enacted.  However, the  

provisions of the earlier act and new act are more or less  

9

Page 10

similar.   The  new  Act  of  1994  was  enacted  with  the  

Statement  of  Objects  and  Reasons  to  bring  together  the  

institutions  like  the  Panchayat  Samitis,  Zila  Parishads  and  

Panchayats  by  a  comprehensive  and  unified  enactment  

consequent  upon  the  Constitutional  changes  made  in  the  

Constitutional 73rd Amendment Act, 1992.  The Act thus was  

aimed to enable the Panchayats to function as an institution  

of self-government.  

(ii) Similar  Panchayati  Raj  Acts  are in  existence in  many  

other  States,  viz.,  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 contained various provisions relating to  

Nyaya Panchayats in the concerned State.  

(iii) The issue arises for consideration in the case on hand is  

whether  the  Punjab  Panchayati  Raj  Act,  1994  deprive  the  

ordinary criminal courts of their jurisdiction to try an offence  

under the IPC, i.e., Section 420, which is both cognizable and  

1

Page 11

non-bailable and which is also mentioned in the Schedule II  

of the said Act.

(iv) It is useful to refer the important provisions under the  

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 which are as under:-

Section 2(za) “Gram Panchayat” means an institution of  self-government for a Gram Sabha area constituted under  Section 9.  

Section 2 (zze)  The expression “offence”, “non-bailable  offence”,  “cognizable  offence”,  “complaint”,  “officer-in- charge of a police station”, and “police station” have the  same  meaning  as  in  Section  2  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure, 1973.            

Section 4 provides for ‘Constitution of Gram Sabhas’.   Section 9 provides for ‘Functions of Gram Sabhas’. Section 30 provides  for  ‘Functions  of  Gram  Panchayats’. Section  35 provides  for  ‘Power  of  Gram  Panchayat  to  

make  general order’.  

Chapter IV provides for the ‘Judicial Functions of Gram  Panchayats’.

Section 44 provides for ‘Powers and Jurisdiction of Gram  Panchayat over criminal offences’ as under:-

(1)  –  Gram  Panchayat  shall  exercise  powers  and  shall  have  jurisdiction  over  matters  laid  down in Schedule II.  

(2)  For  the  purpose  of  deciding  whether  an  offence falls within the jurisdiction of a Gram  Panchayat,  the  provisions  of  Section  178  to  181 of the Code of Criminal  Procedure,  1973  shall apply.  

(3) A Gram Panchayat shall be deemed to be  criminal court when trying criminal cases.”

1

Page 12

Section 45 of the present Act is similar to Section 41 of  the  repealed  Punjab  Gram  Panchayat  Act,  1952  which  provided as under:-

“Any Magistrate before whom a complaint or report  by the Police of any offence triable by a Panchayat is  brought  or  who  takes  cognizance  of  any  such  offence upon his own knowledge or  suspicion shall  transfer  the  proceedings  to  a  Panchayat  of  competent jurisdiction:

Provided  that  a  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate  may  for  reasons  to  be  recorded  in  writing,  transfer  any  criminal case from Gram Panchayat to another Gram  Panchayat  of  competent  jurisdiction  or  to  another  court subordinate to him.

Section 46 provides for ‘Exclusion of certain case’ which is  as under:-

(1)  Subject to the provisions of  sub-section (3),  no  Gram  Panchayat  shall  take  cognizance  of  any  offence under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in which  either  complainant  or  the  accused  is  a  public  servant.  

(2) When information relating to the commission of a  cognizable offence triable by a Gram Panchayat has  been given to an officer incharge of a police station,  he shall  forthwith  send a copy of  First  Information  Report,  to  the  Gram  Panchayat  competent  to  try  such an offence and such Gram Panchayat shall not  proceed to try  any complaint  relating to the same  facts nor shall it issue any summons in the matter,  until  the  officer  has  intimated  in  writing  that  the  investigation has been concluded.

Provided  that  such  an  officer  shall  send  the  information  to  the  Gram  Panchayat  after  the  conclusion of the investigation.

(3) No criminal cases shall  be heard,  by any Gram  Panchayat  when criminal  case on substantially  the  same facts against the same person has been beard  and finally decided by the competent court or Gram  Panchayat or is pending therein, or before it.

1

Page 13

Section 47 provides for ‘Cognizance of criminal cases’

(1) A criminal case before a Gram Panchayat shall be  instituted on a complaint in writing and on payment  of fee prescribed in Schedule III  by presenting it in  person  to  the  Sarpanch,  and  in  absence,  to  any  Panch  or  by  sending  it  by  registered  post  to  the  Gram Panchayat…..  

(2) The  particulars  of  the  complaint  shall  be  recorded by the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat in  the register prescribed for the purpose.  

(3) Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  sub- section (1) A Gram Panchayat shall be competent to  take  cognizance  suo  moto  of  cases  falling  under  Sections 160, 228, 264, 277, 289, 290 & 510 of the  Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3 and 4  of the Punjab Juvenile Smoking Act.  

Section 48 provides for the procedure by Gram Panchayat after  receiving the complaint.  

Section 49 provides for ‘Power of Gram Panchayat to refuse to  entertain criminal case’:-  (1)  If  at  any time it  appears to the Gram Panchayat  that  the  offence is one for which the sentence which the Gram Panchayat  is  competent  to  pass  would  be  inadequate,  it  shall  send  the  record  of  the  case  by  order  in  writing  to  the  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate.  

Section 51 provides for Prompt disposal of criminal cases’:- (1) The Gram Panchayat shall, if possible, try a criminal case  

and pass orders on the day on which the accused appears  and if that is not possible may, if he is not already on bail,  require him to execute a bond with or without sureties… to  appear  before  the  Gram  Panchayat  or  any  subsequent  day/days to which trial may be adjourned…...  

Section 52 provides for the punishment which can be passed  by the Gram Panchayat.  (1) A Gram Panchayat may on conviction:-

1

Page 14

(a) sentence the accused to a fine not exceeding two hundred  rupees or double the value of the damage or loss caused by this  Act, whichever is greater;  

Provided that no fine shall exceed the maximum fine prescribed  by the law for that offence…..  Section 55 provides for supervision of criminal proceedings by  Chief Judicial Magistrate.  

Section  71 provides  that  Provisions  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure, 1973 and Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and the Indian  Evidence Act,  1872 shall  not  apply  to  proceedings before  the  Gram Panchayat.  

Section 74 provides for ‘Bar to Legal Practitioners’ Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  the  Legal  Practitioners  Act,  1879,  no  legal  practitioner  shall  be  permitted  to  appear,  plead  or  act  before  a  Gram  Panchayat for any party in any judicial proceedings under  this Act.   

Sections 79 and 80 provides that on an application filed by  any party  for  transfer  of  proceedings before  the Chief  Judicial  Magistrate  etc.  the Gram Panchayat  shall  adjourn  or  stay the  case.  

Section 82 provides for ‘Finality of decision.’

Section 222 provides for ‘Over-riding Effect on Other Laws’  (1) Save  as  otherwise  provided  in  this  Act,  the  provisions of  this Act or rules or regulations or  bye-laws  made  thereunder  have  effect  notwithstanding  anything  inconsistent contained in any other law for the time being  in force.  

(C) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

Section 4  Trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code  and other laws:-  

(1) All offences under the Indian Penal Code (45 of  1860) shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and  otherwise  dealt  with  according  to  the  provisions  hereinafter contained.  

1

Page 15

(2) All  offences  under  any  other  law  shall  be  investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt  with according to the same provisions, but subject to  any enactment for the time being in force regulating  the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into,  trying or otherwise dealing with such offences.”  

Section 5 provides that ‘nothing contained in this Code shall, in  the absence of a specific provision to the contrary,  affect any  special  or  local  law  for  time  being  in  force,  or  any  special  jurisdiction or power conferred or any special form of procedure  prescribed, any other law for time being in force’.  

Section 2(d) ‘Complaint’ and  Section 2(r) ‘Police Report’ has  been equally applicable under the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act.  

(D) Case Laws:

(i) In  Giani Ram vs.  Attar Chand and Ors.,  AIR 1960  

Punjab 80, while dealing with earlier Punjab Gram Panchayat  

Act, 1952, it was observed that proviso to Section 41 did not  

intend to take away the jurisdiction vested in the criminal  

courts to try offences which they are empowered to try under  

the Code of Criminal Procedure.  The ordinary criminal courts  

have not been completely divested of their jurisdiction under  

the general law.  

(ii) As rightly pointed out by learned ASG, it is important to  

note that no ‘exclusive jurisdiction’ for trying certain criminal  

offences  has  been  conferred  upon Gram Panchayat  under  

1

Page 16

the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 or Punjab Panchayati  

Raj Act, 1994 unlike in the case of Pepsu Panchayat Raj Act,  

2008Bk. (Section 67(2) of the Pepsu Act). [vide Meena Ram  

vs. Master Dwarki, AIR 1958 Punjab 417 at para 2]

(iii) In  Baldeo Singh and Ors. vs.  State of Bihar and  

Others, AIR 1957 SC 612, this Court, after interpreting the  

provisions of Bihar Panchayati Raj Act, 1948, held that the  

scheme of the Act was that a case cognizable under the Act  

by Gram Cutcherry should be tried by a Bench of the Gram  

Cutcherry save in some exceptional  cases.  It  was further  

held that in case of transfer, withdrawal of a case from the  

Gram Cutcherry or the cancellation of the jurisdiction of the  

bench, it may not be said that the ordinary criminal Courts  

also have no jurisdiction to try it.         

(iv) A  similar  ‘exclusive  jurisdiction’  has  been  conferred  

upon Nyaya Panchayats under the Uttar Pradesh Panchayat  

Raj Act, 1947. [vide Chhotey Lal and Others vs. State AIR  

1967 All 229 para 6]

(v) In  Bhim Sen vs.  State of U.P., AIR 1955 SC 435, a  

bench of three-Judges of this  Court,  while interpreting the  

1

Page 17

U.P. Panchayat Raj  Act, 1947, which contained a provision  

relating to bar of jurisdiction of ordinary criminal courts, has  

held that  such a bar in respect of the entire case can be  

operative  only when there  is  valid  machinery for  the  trial  

thereof under the Act.  

(vi) In  Kartar Singh and Others vs.  Pritam Singh and  

Others AIR 1956 Pepsu 78, it was held with respect to civil  

matters  that  “although  the  Panchayat  Courts  have  been  

given jurisdiction in certain suits by the Pepsu Panchayat Raj  

Act, 2008 Bk, the jurisdiction of ordinary civil courts in such  

suits  has  not  been excluded or  taken  away,  the  result  of  

which is that both the courts have concurrent jurisdiction in  

such suits.

(vii) In State of M.P. vs. Shobharam & Ors., AIR 1966 SC  

1910, a Constitution Bench of this Court, while examining the  

provisions of Madhya Bharat Panchayat Act, 1949 held that  

“the police have under its general powers under the Code of  

Criminal Procedure authority to arrest any person concerned  

in any cognizable offence”.  

1

Page 18

10) Learned  amicus,  after  adverting to  the  various  

provisions of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 as well as  

of the Code pointed out that  de hors the fact that whether  

the offence is triable under the ordinary criminal courts or by  

the  Gram  Panchayats,  there  is  no  bar  to  the  police  to  

investigate  the  offence  and  submit  a  report  to  the  

Magistrate.  He further submitted that according to Section  

45 of the said Act, Magistrate can transfer a case to Gram  

Panchayat  at  the  stage  of  receiving  a  complaint  under  

Section 156(3) or at the time of taking cognizance after filing  

of  report  by  the  police  under  Section  173  of  the  Code.  

Therefore, in view of the above, the Punjab Panchayati Raj  

Act, 1994 in no way prohibits the investigation and arrest by  

the Police.  

11) Learned amicus curiae, by pointing out towards Section  

46(2) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 contended that  

it makes very clear that at least the part of investigation has  

been entrusted to the Police.  He further pointed out that the  

provisions  contained  in  Section  47  make  it  clear  that:  (i)  

Gram Panchayat can take suo moto cognizance only in cases  

1

Page 19

falling under Sections 160, 228, 264, 277, 289, 290 and 510  

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and certain other cases;  and  

(ii)  for remaining cases in the Schedule II, cognizance can  

only be taken after receiving a complaint in writing.

12) Further,  it  is  submitted  in  view of  Section  51  of  the  

Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 that the wordings ‘if he is  

not  already  on  bail’  signifies  that  the  accused  can  be  

investigated  under  the  provisions  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  

Procedure and can even be arrested.  

13) Learned amicus curiae further pointed out that in view  

of Section 52 of the Punjab Panchayati  Raj Act,  1994, the  

Gram Panchayats have a limited power only to impose a fine  

that too of only Rs. 200 and it has no power to sentence the  

accused for  imprisonment.   Further,  in  view of Section 71  

which provides that the provisions of the Code of Criminal  

Procedure,  1973  and  Civil  Procedure  Code,  1908  and  the  

Indian  Evidence  Act,  1872  shall  not  apply  to  proceedings  

before the Gram Panchayat, it was submitted that the above  

provision does not mean that during investigation and the  

1

Page 20

proceeding  before  the  Magistrate,  provisions  of  Code  of  

Criminal Procedure, 1973 will not apply.  

14) Admittedly,  though  civil  and  criminal  jurisdiction  has  

been conferred upon the Gram Panchayats, no qualification  

etc., has been provided for panchas.  Therefore, what culled  

out from the above is that the power of the police cannot be  

abridged or taken away under any circumstances.  

15) It is not out of place to mention that a new Act, viz.,  

Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 has been enacted and has been  

made applicable to many States including Punjab. The new  

Act  of  2008  also  brings  in  the  civil  and  the  criminal  

jurisdiction  to  the  Gram  Nyayalayas.   Section  3(3)  of  the  

2008  Act  provides  that  the  Gram  Nyayalayas  established  

under the sub-Section (1) shall be in addition to the courts  

established under any other law for the time being in force.  

16) As far as the present case is concerned, in view of the  

various  provisions  of  the  Constitution  of  India,  Punjab  

Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  

as well as the case laws on the point discussed in the earlier  

2

Page 21

paragraphs,  the  conclusion  which  can  be  drawn from the  

above is as under:-

(i) There  is  no  bar  for  investigating  any  offence  by  the  

police including the offences mentioned in the Schedule II of  

the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994.  

(ii) The investigation would include the power to arrest and  

the ordinary procedure under the Code will govern the entire  

proceedings.  

(iii) Till  the  stage  of  completion  of  investigation,  Gram  

Panchayat has no jurisdiction at all.  

(iv) After  the  report  of  police  under  Section  173,  the  

Magistrate shall transfer the case for trial to Gram Panchayat  

or to any other subordinate court to him.  

(v) Unless a case is transferred to Gram Panchayat under  

Section 45 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the ‘Gram  

Panchayat’  does  not  get  any  jurisdiction  over  the  said  

case/investigation  unless  the  offence  is  one  mentioned  in  

Section 47(3) of the said Act.  

(vi) However,  it  is  open  to  any  person/complainant  to  

directly  approach  the  Gram  Panchayat  by  submitting  a  

2

Page 22

written  complaint.   In  that  case  also,  if  it  is  a  cognizable  

offence,  there  is  no  bar  for  the  police  to  investigate  the  

matter.        

17) In  view  of  the  above  analysis,  the  claim  of  the  

appellants, as projected by Mr. Kapoor, that no investigation  

can be carried out by police is not sustainable.  Though Mr.  

Kapoor has relied on various decisions of the High Courts,  

viz., State of M.P. vs. Shobaram and Others AIR 1966 SC  

1910,  Bhim  Sen  (supra),  Meena  Ram  (supra)  and  

Chhotely Lal (supra),  in the light of our interpretation with  

reference to the relevant provisions of the Punjab Panchayati  

Raj Act, 1994, we feel that the same are not helpful to the  

stand taken by the appellants.  

18) Under these circumstances, we hold that  in the facts  

and circumstances of the present case, the investigation is to  

be conducted by the police authorities only and the offence  

of  Section 420 IPC  where  the  allegations are  of a  serious  

nature and the appellants has duped of Rs. 30 lakhs from the  

complainant,  should be tried by the regular criminal  court  

only and not by the Gram Panchayat.   

2

Page 23

19) Consequently, both the appeals fail and are accordingly  

dismissed.   Interim  protection  granted  earlier  shall  stand  

vacated.   

………….…………………………J.                   (P. SATHASIVAM)                                  

       ………….…………………………J.                   (M.Y. EQBAL)  

NEW DELHI; JULY 01, 2013.

2