1   ( 2025:HHC:36457 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.413 of 2024 Reserved on:- 01.08.2025 Date of Decision: 31.10.2025 Satish Kumar & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajiv Rai and Ms. Rajni Gandhi, Advocates, for the petitioners. For the Respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, and Mr. H.S. Rawat Additional Advocates General, with Ms. Ranjna Patial, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2/State. Mr. Yuyutsu Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No.3 & 4. None for respondent No.5. Virender Singh, Judge Petitioners have filed the present petition, under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.PC.’) against the order dated 29.02.2024, passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P., in case titled as Satish Kumar and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. 2   ( 2025:HHC:36457 ) 2. By way of order dated 29.02.2024, the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, has dismissed the application, under Section 408 of the Cr.PC, for transferring the Criminal trial in Case FIR No.83 of 2014, dated 25.04.2014, pending before Gram Panchayat, Kacholi to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, H.P., with a request to decide the cases, arising out of FIR No.83 of 2014, dated 25.04.2014, along with Case FIR No.85 of 2014, dated 25.04.2014, titled as State of H.P. versus Mohinder Singh and another. 3. As per the case, pleaded in the petition, the petitioners are aggrieved from the order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. According to the petitioners, when proforma respondent No.5, Gomati Devi had gone to her Cowshed for feeding the cows, respondents No.4 and 5, restrained her from moving on the path and tried to molest her and when, she resisted, she was abused. When proforma respondent No.5 Gomati Devi cried for help, upon which, petitioners reached on the spot, however, respondents No.3 and 4 had started beating them, as well as, proforma respondent No.5-Gomati Devi Consequently, petitioners received multiple fractures and grievous injuries. Thereafter, emergency medical service was called by dialing 3   ( 2025:HHC:36457 ) 108 and then, they were taken to Zonal Hospital Bilaspur, from where, petitioners were referred to IGMC Shimla, where, both of them remained admit for about one and a half month. 4. It is the further case of the petitioners that when, they were taken to Zonal Hospital, Bilaspur, police received the information regarding the physical assault, on the family members of proforma respondent No.5 and they were also taken to Zonal Hospital, Bilaspur. In this regard GD Entry No.34A was made in daily diary at 21:30 PM, on 25.04.2025. 5. On the statements of the petitioners, FIR No.85 of 2024, dated 25.04.2014 was registered against respondents No.4 and 5 and after investigation of the case, the police has filed the charge sheet, under Sections 451, 354, 323, 325, 147, 149 & 504 of IPC against respondents No.4 and 5. The said charge sheet has been filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, H.P. The said cases are stated to be listed for prosecution witnesses. 6. It is the further case of the petitioners that when, the petitioners and proforma respondent No.5 Gomati Devi were admitted in Zonal Hospital Bilaspur, respondents No.4 and 5, approached to the police and got lodged FIR, prior to the petitioners. The said FIR was registered vide FIR No.83 of 4   ( 2025:HHC:36457 ) 2014, dated 25.04.2014 at 23:10 hrs, against the petitioners and proforma respondent No.5. Police had also conducted the investigation in the said case and filed the charge sheet, which was transferred to the Gram Panchayat Kacholi, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 34 of IPC, against the petitioners and proforma respondent No.5. 7. It is the further case of the petitioners that FIR No.83 of 2014 and FIR No.85 of 2014 had arisen out of the same occurrence, as such, trial of both the cases cannot be conducted by two different fora/authorities. 8. In addition to this, it has been apprehended that the petitioner would not get the fair trial from Gram Panchayat Kacholi, as the accused persons i.e. respondents No.3 and 4 are influential persons. Elaborating their stand, it has been submitted that respondent No.4 is the President of the Gram Panchayat, Kacholi, before whom, the trial of the case arising out of FIR No.83 of 2014 is pending. 9. The learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the said application, vide order dated 29.02.2024, which is impugned before this Court in the instant proceedings. The main ground of attack is that the said order is against the well settled 5   ( 2025:HHC:36457 ) proposition of law, as the learned Sessions Judge, has wrongly held that the incident involving in FIR No.83 of 2014 and FIR No.85 of 2014 are totally different. 10. Reiterating their stand, that the trial of the cross FIR i.e. FIRs arising out of the same occurrence should have been conducted by the same Court, a prayer has been made to allow the petition by setting aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. 11. With the petition, photocopies of the FIR No.83 of 2014, dated 25.04.2014, as well as, FIR No.85 of 2014, dated 26.04.2014 have been annexed. 12. FIR No.83 of 2014 dated 25.04.2014 was lodged by respondent No.4, Satpal Son of Chet Ram, whereas FIR No.85 of 2014, dated 26.04.2014 has been lodged by proforma respondent No.5 Gomati Devi. 13. The petitioners have approached this Court for the following substantive relief:- “It is therefore, respectfully prayed that keeping in view the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the present petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned decision dated 29.02.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Criminal Case No.419- 4/2023 titled as Satish Kumar and others 6   ( 2025:HHC:36457 ) versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others may kindly be quashed and set-aside and the criminal trial in FIR No.83 of 2014 dated 25.04.2014 pending before the Gram Pachayat Kacholi may be transferred to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate with a direction to conduct the trial in FIR No.83 of 2014 dated 25.04.2014 along with the pending trial in FIR No.85 of 2014, dated 26.04.2014, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh versus Mohinder Singh and another.” 14. Perusal of FIR No.85 of 2014, shows that the same was got lodged by respondent No.5, on the ground that on 25.04.2014, at about 8:30 PM, she had gone to her Cowshed to feed the pet animals, upon which, Mahender Singh and Satpal Singh came on the road and started abusing each other. When, the complainant raised objection, then, father of Satpal Singh and his family members came on the spot and in order save her, she has sought help, upon which, her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law came on the spot, but above persons had beaten them with Dandas, resultantly, they had sustained injuries. Thereafter, husband of complainant namely Gurmeet was also beaten. She has further got lodged that Satpal, Mahender and his family members, with an intention to commit a crime, had entered in their cowshed. As 7   ( 2025:HHC:36457 ) such, a request has been made to take action against them upon which, the police registered the case under Sections 451, 323, 504 and 34 IPC. 15. On the other hand, respondent No.4-Satpal lodged the FIR No.83 of 2014, on the ground that on 25.04.2014 at about 9:15 PM, he was present at his house. In the meanwhile, his co-villager Satish drove his car to the road and parked the car behind the car of this person. Since the road was narrow, as such, he has requested the said person to remove his vehicle, upon which, petitioner No.1-Satish Kumar caught hold him from his neck and started abusing, upon which, complainant had gone to his house. After sometime, Satish Kumar along with his wife Sunita Devi, mother Krishna Devi and Sister-in-law Gomati Devi, came to their courtyard and in the courtyard, Satish Kumar had inflicted injuries on his hand and legs with the help of Dandas and other persons had abused him. 16. According to the complainant, all the above persons, jointly entered unauthorizedly in their courtyard and beaten them, as such, he had prayed that he be medico legally examined and action be taken against them. 8   ( 2025:HHC:36457 ) 17. Admittedly, after registration of the FIR, the trial of the case, arising out of FIR No.83 of 2014, was transferred to Gram Panchayat, Kacholi, whereas, trial of FIR No.85 of 2014, was pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, H.P. By moving the transfer application, a prayer has been made to transfer the case from Gram Panchayat, Kacholi to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, H.P., with a further prayer to conduct the trial arising out of FIR No.83 of 2014, along with FIR No.85 of 2014. 18. The learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of the provisions of Section 34 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, has rejected the prayer of the present petitioners to transfer the case from Gram Panchayat, Kacholi to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, H.P. 19. The copy of the application under Section 408 of Cr.PC, moved before the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, has also been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-6, para-7 of which is reproduced, as under:- “That not only to this, at this stage it would also be pertinent to mention here that there is no hope for a fair trial by the Gram Panchayat Kacholi in FIR No.83 of 2014, as the accused persons happens to be the influential persons and the 9   ( 2025:HHC:36457 ) respondent No.4 happens to be the President of the Gram Panchayat Kacholi.” 20. Specific allegations have been levelled with regard to the fact that respondent No.4 is President of Gram Panchayat, Kacholi. The said contention has neither been accepted, nor, rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur and in the reply, which has been filed by the State, in the present case, a stand has been taken that in case, respondent No.4 is found to be President of the Gram Panchayat, Kacholi, then, the petitioners could move appropriate application to the authorities under the provisions of Section 43 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The said contention has again been raised by the petitioners, before this Court in para-10. 21. When, the material fact, as asserted by the petitioners, by way of para-7, in the application, which, according to the considered opinion of the Court, will go to the root of the very jurisdiction of the Panchayat to decide the said case, then, non-deciding, the above material question, as raised in the application specifically gives this Court, an occasion, to remand back the matter to the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, to decide the matter afresh, as the Section 30 10   ( 2025:HHC:36457 ) of the Act, creates a specific bar for Panches to take part in certain cases. Relevant provisions of Section 30 of the Act, is reproduced as under:- “30. Bar for Panches to take part in certain cases.- (1) No Panch shall take part in any case, suit or proceedings to which he or she or his or her near relation, employed or employee, or partner in business is a party or in which any of them is personally interested. (2) If by reason of the number of Panches disqualified under subsection (1) there remains no quorum the Gram Panchayat shall send the case or the suit to the Judicial Magistrate or the Sub- Judge or the Collector having jurisdiction, as the case may be, for disposal in accordance with law. Explanation.- ‘near relation’ means father, grandfather, father-in-law, maternal or paternal uncle, son, grandson, son-in-law, brother, nephew, brother-in-law, wife, sister , sister’s husband, mother, daughter, niece, motherin-law, daughter- in-law and husband.” 22. Section 2 (25) of the Act, which is also reproduced as under:- “(25) “panch” means a member of Gram Panchayat while discharging the judicial functions of the Gram Panchayat under this Act and includes a Pradhan or Up-Pradhan.” 23. In view of provisions of Section 30 of the Act, the bar, as created by Section 34 of the Act has partially been lifted 11   ( 2025:HHC:36457 ) by the legislature in its wisdom. Moreover, as per Section 30(2) of the Act, if there is disqualification of the Panches to participate in the proceedings, then, the Gram Panchayat shall send the case to the Judicial Magistrate or the Sub Judge or the Collector, having jurisdiction, as the case may be, for disposal in accordance with law. Meaning thereby, the bar, as created under Section 34 of the Act, which has been relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur is not the absolute bar and the window has been provided by the legislature. 24. In view of the above, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, rejecting the application for transfer does not stand in the judicial scrutiny by this Court. Although, this question can be decided by this Court, but, deciding the question, either way, would snatch the opportunity from the aggrieved party, to challenge the same, before this Court. 25. In view of the reasons, as stated above, i.e. non- deciding the point raised by the petitioners, the petition is allowed by setting aside the order dated 29.02.2024, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur and the matter is remanded back to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, 12   ( 2025:HHC:36457 ) Bilaspur, with a request to decide the matter afresh, after deciding the said question, as raised in para-7 of the application, along with other contentions. Ordered accordingly. 26. Consequently, the CMA No.419-4/2023, titled as Satish Kumar & others versus State of H.P. and others, filed under Section 408 of Cr.PC, is ordered to be restored to its original number. 27. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, 10.11.2025. (Virender Singh) Judge October 31, 2025 (subhash)