- (1.) THIS revision is directed against an order of Munsif Magistrate dismissing revision under Section 89 of U. P Panchayat Raj Act.
(2.) FACTS are the revisionist filed a complaint in Panchayat Court against opposite parties No. 2 to 5 for offences under Sections 504 and 506, I. P. C. A compromise inter alia signed by the revisionist was filed before the Panchayat Court. Panchayat Court accepted that compromise and decided the case in terms of compromise. Then under Section 89 of U. P. Panchayat Raj Act revision was filed before Judicial Magistrate. It was contended that the compromise was not thum-marked by the revisionist and that the compromise was beyond the subject-matter of the dispute between parties. Learned Munsif Magistrate exercising the powers of Judicial Magistrate remitted both the mentions and dismissed the revision. Against this revisionist came to this Court under Section 397, Cr. P. C.
(3.) ON behalf of the opposite parties reliance was placed on the case of Ram Charan v. Nyaya Panchayat Adalat, 1982 (19) ACC 278. and it was contended that revision under Section 397, Cr. P. C. is not maintainable. I have gone through the case. In that case order of the Nyaya Panchayat was challenged before the High Court under Section 482, Cr. P. C. In view of specific provisions of Section 83 (i) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act it was held that Nyaya Panchayat is not a Court for the purposes of Section 6 of Cr. P. C. Hence petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. is not maintainable. This case is apparently distinguishable because in the instant case the order passed by the Magistrate in Revision under Section 89, Cr. P. C. has been challenged. In this connection reliance can be placed on the Division Bench case of Punni v. State of U. P. , 1971 AWR 180. In this case it was held that exercising revisional powers under Section 89 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act a Munsif, a Sub-Divisional Officer or Sub-Divisional Magistrate is a Court and although Section 83 excludes applicability of C. P. C. and Cr. P. C. to the Nyaya Panchayat Act in revision the context is changed. Hence it was said that it could not be said that a contrary order passed under Section 435, Cr. P. C. old would be contrary to the provision of Section 83 or 85 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act 1 think that this ruling creates scope for revision against a revisional order passed under Section 89 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. Then coming to the merit of the revision question whether revisionist put his thumb-mark on the compromise is a question that which cannot be examined in revision under Section 397, Cr. P. C. on behalf of the revisionist para 4 of the compromise was vehemently criticised and it was said that although the dispute gave rise to offences under Section 504/506, Cr. P. C. yet a term was accepted that a daughter would be given to the opposite party. First of all, I may say that is nothing in the Criminal Law prohibiting inclusion of matter alien to the dispute in the criminal case in the compromise. Section 83 (2) of U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 reads as under: "nothing in this sub-section shall entitle any party to compound any offence which is not compoundable under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or to compound an offence without the permission of the Bench concerned if it is compoundable with permission under the provisions of the said Code. ";