Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Germane of this case is arising out of an order passed by this Court on 20.02.2023 in Praveen Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ-C No. 5703 of 2023), Neutral Citation No. 2023:AHC:40007. For reference said order is reproduced hereinafter:
“1. Petitioner has recently enrolled as an Advocate and being a bona fide citizen of village concerned he has filed complaint against existing Village Pradhan for irregularities committed and a detailed complaint was presented before District Magistrate concerned. Consequently, inquiry was initiated under concerned Rules.
2. Sri Praveen Kumar Singh, petitioner in person, submits that a notice was issued to contesting respondent, however, till date no reply has been submitted and as such inquiry has not been concluded.
3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for State-Respondents, submits that since inquiry has been initiated, therefore, Inquiry Officer will take all endeavor to conclude inquiry expeditiously.
4. In view of above, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the writ petition is disposed with observation that District Magistrate concerned will look into the matter and take all appropriate steps for expeditious conclusion of inquiry by Inquiry Officer, in accordance with law.”
2. It appears that in pursuance of above order, Government Officials conducted inspection of concerned place, i.e., a Pond. Facts of the case further disclosed that allegedly some obstructions were made and some struggle took place due to which inspection was not completed. Facts further revealed that on basis of cross version, two FIRs were lodged. First being Case Crime No. 0139 of 2023 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 323, 504, 506 IPC was lodged by Applicant-1 against five named accused and accused no. 1 being Dharmendra Singh (Opposite Party No. 2 herein), who was claimed to be a Pradhanpati (his wife being an elected Gram Pradhan). Contents of FIR are reproduced hereinafter:
3. A cross version was also lodged at the instance of Dharmendra Singh, the so called Pradhanpati against applicant and two others being Case Crime No. 0140 of 2023 for offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and contents thereof is also mentioned hereinafter:
4. Investigation was conducted in both cases and charge sheet was filed whereon cognizance was taken and respective summoning orders were passed by concerned Trial Court.
5. Applicants have challenged charge sheet No. 162 of 2023, cognizance order dated 08.12.2023 and summoning order dated 29.01.2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 0140 of 2023 (State vs. Atma Prasad Singh and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Shankargarh, District Prayagraj, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-15, Prayagraj.
6. Notice was issued alongwith Dasti summon. Certificate of Dasti summon is filed today which is taken on record that notice was served upon Opposite Party No. 2, however, none appeared on his behalf.
7. I have heard Sri Praveen Kumar Singh, Applicant-1, in person, for all applicants and learned AGA for State.
8. Court takes note that according to version of both FIRs, alleged occurrence took place in presence of Nodal Officer, who was inspecting Pond but respective Investigating Officers have not took endeavour even to record their statements to verify the allegations and have filed respective charge sheets.
9. Inspection was conducted in pursuance of an order passed by this Court, as referred above, therefore, it was the duty of State to maintain peace and law and order but appears that the same was not taken care of.
10. In Village Panchayats elections for Pradhan are held reserving some seats for Women candidates. It become a practice that though a Woman of concerned Village Panchayat was elected but show is run by her Husband only declaring themselves to be Pradhanpati and elected Pradhan become only a rubber stamp. This Court in the case of Gaon Sabha vs. State of U.P. and others, Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:224233 has deprecated such terminology and interference of work of a Panchayat at this instance and for reference relevant paragraphs of judgment are reproduced hereinafter:
“1. The term ‘Pradhanpati” is a very popular and widely used term in State of Uttar Pradesh. It is used for "the Husband" of a woman Pradhan. Despite being an unauthorized authority, "Pradhanpati" unauthorisedly, usually undertakes work of a woman Pradhan, i.e., his wife. There are many instances where a woman Pradhan only acts like a rubber stamp and for all practical purposes, all major decisions are taken by so called “Pradhanpati”, and elected representative just acts like mute spectator. The present writ petition is a glaring example of such a situation.
2. xxxxx
3. In the capacity of Pradhan, petitioner has no power to delegate her rights, duties and obligations to her husband or any other person, arising out of her elected post. The pairokar, i.e., “Pradhanpati” has no business to interfere with the working of Gaon Sabha. If such act is permitted it will not only frustrate objective of women empowerment but also object of providing specific reservation to women to come forward and join main stream of politics and increase their participation in social, economic and cultural growth of nation.
4. The Court is aware that there are women Pradhans in State of Uttar Pradesh, who are exercising their power, rights and duties and legal obligations effectively and are doing very good work for village concerned. However, the present case does not appear to be such.
5. In view of above, this writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 5000/- each to be paid by petitioner-Karmjeet Kaur and her husband, Sukhdev Singh (Pairokar in present writ petition) by Demand Draft from their respective Bank accounts in favour of Registrar General of this Court within two weeks from today. In case of default, Registrar General is permitted to proceed in accordance with law.
6. A copy of this order be sent to District Magistrate, Bijnor so that Sri Sukhdev Singh shall be barred from entering in the office of Gaon Sabha concerned in the capacity of “Pradhanpati” as well as to act as a representative of Pradhan for rest of her present term of office, except as a common villager.
7. A copy of this order shall also be sent to State Election Commission so that it may consider to issue a Circular for all candidates for future elections, cautioning them to be careful in exercising their powers, functions and duties as a representative of village not as mere rubber stamp of her husband or relatives (in case of woman Pradhan), and it may include such declaration in their affidavit filed at the time of presenting their nomination paper.
8. A copy of this order shall also be sent to Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj, Government of U.P., Lucknow to circulate it to all Gaon Sabha of State of Uttar Pradesh.”
11. It was the duty of State to comply the said order passed by this Court and to maintain peace and law and order, however, they have miserably failed to do so.
12. Sri Praveen Kumar Singh, appearing in person, has referred to injuries allegedly caused to Pradhanpati, i.e., complainant of present case. Medical examination was conducted after five days and though a fracture of nasal bone was shown but it does not co-relate with date of alleged occurrence. He also referred that a Medical Board was constituted which has given report being part of this application that Investigating Officer was failed to submit any medical examination report as well as complainant has also not submitted any report from hospital where he was referred. For reference said report of Medical Board is reproduced hereinafter:
13. Sri Praveen Kumar also refers relevant paragraphs of application being paras no. 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31, which are reproduced hereinafter:
“27. That the applicant no1 an Advocate, practising before the Hon’ble Court, and he has made application for stopping the embezzlement of Government Fund which are provided to the public interest, but the opposite party no. 2 has embezzled the very huge money of public fund, resulted the implication of fasely.
28. That earlier to the Present Pradhan of Village of opposite party no. 2 wife namely Jeet Luxmi Singh Patel the brother of opposite party no. 2 was also Pradhan of village, therefore, to save skin of Both Pradhanies Tenure, embezzlements, manipulation, the opposite party No.2 has falsely implicated to the petitioner.
29. That earlier to this episode stated above, the applicant no. 3 has also made application for stopping the embezzlement of Government Fund against the Pradhan, the muscles persons of opposite party no. 2 (Namely Lal Pratap, Bhanja(Son of real sister of Gram Pradhan, Mahendra Pal(Real Jeera) brother in-law, Manoj Kumar (Bhanja) son of real sister) have beaten the applicant no. 3 Vidya Sagar, for which he has lodged the first information report dated 21.08.2022 as case Crime No. 0230 of 2022, under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC PS Shankargarh, Prayagraj.
30. That the accused Lal Pratap Singh of Case Crime No. 230 of 2022 has a Criminal History in heinous crime implicated in several crimes.
31. That opposite party no. 2 is a habitual for usurping/ grabbing and embezzlement of Government fund provided for public welfare, no can speak even a single words against the opposite party no. 2, and there is no personal interest to make application 23.07.2022 made by the petitioner before the District Magistrate, Prayagraj.”
14. Learned AGA has tried to support charge sheet as well as summoning order, however, all the above referred submissions remained uncontroverted.
15. In aforesaid circumstances, taking note of above referred discussion, it appears that cross version is false case and injury report of Pradhanpati was also manipulated which is clearly evident from report of Medical Board, as referred above. It appears that complainant, i.e., Pradhanpati, is an influential person and investigation of present case was conducted under his influence. Investigating Officer has not recorded statements of Government Officials, who were allegedly present on spot for conducting inspection.
16. In view of above, the application is allowed. Impugned charge sheet No. 162 of 2023, cognizance order dated 08.12.2023 and summoning order dated 29.01.2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 0140 of 2023 (State vs. Atma Prasad Singh and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Shankargarh, District Prayagraj, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-15, Prayagraj, are hereby quashed. A cost of Rs. 50,000/- is imposed on complainant, i.e., Pradhanpati for misleading and influencing the investigation and interrupting the inspection proceedings.
17. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps.
