Palok Basu - (1.) IN this petition under section 482 CrPC filed by Mangala Raj, he challenges the proceedings by way of complaint under section 14-A. of the U. P. Panchyat Raj Act (here in after to be called as the Act) instituted at the instance of Sub-Divisional Magistrate Chandauli, Varanasi, in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi.
(2.) THE facts lie in a narrow compass. THE petitioner Mangala Raj was a sitting pradhan till 1988 when he was voted out and Ramesh Rai was elected as the Pradhan of the Village/Gaon Sabha, Pipri, Block Barahani, District Varanasi. THE allegations in the complaint are that the complainant Mangala Raj was not handing over the charge of the office of pradhan in as much as several papers were detained by him wrongly and inspite of demand by the Magistrate i.e. the prescribed Authority under the Act, he did not comply with it. It was stated in the complaint that such action of Mangala Raj amounts to an offence under section 14-A of the Act. It may be remembered that such an offence under section 14-A of the Act is punishable with three year's R. I. or with a fine or with both. THE said section says that if any person on ceasing to act as pradhan wilfully falls in spite of being required to do so by the prescribed Authority, to hand over all records, money or other property of Gaon Sabha to his successor, he shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years or fine or with both. To complete the chronology relating to the filing of the complaint, it may be stated that the C.J.M. passed the following order on 22-2-1989 (vide Annexure 4 to the petition) : S. O. Dhina. register and investigate. Copy of order forwarded to the S. O. Dhina, Varanasi for compliance. Sd. (C.J.M) Varanasi. 22-2-1989 It appears that in pursuance of the registration of the said case at the Police Station, investigation began and steps to secure the presence of the applicant had been taken as he has stated that he is apprehending arrest at the behest of the said Police Station. An application has been moved in this Court by Ramesh Rai for being impleaded as an opposite party. He has also filed a detailed counter affidavit. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the state. Rejoinder affidavits have also been filed.
(3.) SRI Vinod Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant has been heard at length in support of this petition while SRI Ram Niwas Singh has argued the matter on behalf of Ramesh Rai and SRI Surendra Singh, learned A.GA. has supported the arguments advanced on behalf of Ramesh Rai. In the interest of justice it appears just and proper to allow the impleadment of Ramesh Rai in this application under section 482 CrPC as opposite party no. 2.;