AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.R. Gavai, J.—Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally.
The petitioner challenges the order dated 16.9.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Amravati, below Exh.1 in Misc. Cri. Case No. 149/2012. The said order is passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amravati as a Panel Judge in the Lok Adalat.
The petitioner had filed a Complaint for the offence punishable u/s 494 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondents 3 and 4. It appears that on the basis of the oral report of the petitioner, criminal case is also registered for the offence punishable under Sections 494, 498A, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
However, it appears that during the pendency of the criminal case, a pursis came to be filed by the petitioner stating therein that since the crime is registered against the respondent husband for the offence punishable u/s 498A, 494 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, she does not wish to proceed with the complaint against the respondents. However, it appears that in the Lok Adalat, without petitioner being noticed, order has been passed acquitting the respondent husband for the offence punishable u/s 494 of the Indian Penal Code. It further appears that on the basis of the order passed by the Panel Judge in Lok Adalat, the respondent husband has also filed an application for discharge in case filed at the instance of the State.
The learned counsel for the respondents takes an objection to the petition on the ground that since the order passed is a judicial order, the matter will have to go before the learned Single Bench and not before the Division Bench.
If the learned Single Bench decides the matter pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Division Bench, it is an order in nullity. However, vice versa is not the same. If the Division Bench decides the matter pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Single Bench, the order is not invalidated in law. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the objection of the respondent husband in that regard. We are not inclined to do particularly in view of the patent illegality in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. When the petitioner had only sought withdrawal of the complaint on the ground that the State has already filed a case against the respondent husband, the learned Magistrate could not have acquitted the respondent husband for same charges. In any case, that could not have been done without issuing notice to the petitioner. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
Rule is made absolute by quashing and setting aside the order dated 16th September, 2012.
No order as to costs.