The Allahabad High Court has made a strong comment on the interference of husbands in the work of elected women Pradhans.
The court said that in Village Panchayats elections for Pradhan are held reserving some seats for Women candidates. It became a practice that though a Woman of concerned Village Panchayat was elected but the show is run by her Husband only declaring themselves to be Pradhanpati and elected Pradhan become only a rubber stamp.
A Single Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery heard an application under section 482 filed by Praveen Kumar Singh and 2 Others.
Germane of the case is arising out of an order passed by the Court on 20.02.2023 in Praveen Kumar Singh vs State of U.P and others, which is as under:
“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.
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.
Standing Counsel appearing for State-Respondents, submits that since inquiry has been initiated, therefore, Inquiry Officer will take all endeavor to conclude inquiry expeditiously.
In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with the observation that the District Magistrate concerned will look into the matter and take all appropriate steps for expeditious conclusion of inquiry by the Inquiry Officer, in accordance with law.”
The Court noted that in pursuance of above order, Government Officials conducted inspection of the 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 the basis of cross version, two FIRs were lodged. First being Case 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).
A cross version was also lodged at the instance of Dharmendra Singh, the so called Pradhanpati against applicant and two others being Case for offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and contents.
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.
Applicants have challenged charge sheet cognizance order dated 08.12.2023 and summoning order dated 29.01.2024, arising out of Case under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Shankargarh, District Prayagraj, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj.
The Court observed that,
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 taken endeavour even to record their statements to verify the allegations and have filed respective charge sheets.
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.
The Court said that in Village Panchayats elections for Pradhan are held reserving some seats for Women candidates. It became a practice that though a Woman of concerned Village Panchayat was elected but the show is run by her Husband only declaring themselves to be Pradhanpati and elected Pradhan become only a rubber stamp.
It was the duty of the State to comply with the said order passed by the Court and to maintain peace and law and order, however, they have miserably failed to do so.
The Court further noted that,
Praveen Kumar Singh, appearing in person, has referred to injuries allegedly caused to Pradhanpati, i.e, complainant of the 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 said that a Medical Board was constituted which has given a report being part of this application that the Investigating Officer failed to submit any medical examination report as well as that the complainant has also not submitted any report from the hospital where he was referred.
“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 the complainant, i.e, Pradhanpati, is an influential person and investigation of the case was conducted under his influence. The Investigating Officer has not recorded statements of Government Officials, who were allegedly present on spot for conducting inspection”, the Court further observed while allowing the application.
“Impugned charge sheet, cognizance order dated 08.12.2023 and summoning order dated 29.01.2024, arising out of Case under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Shankargarh, District Prayagraj, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj, are hereby quashed. A cost of Rs 50,000/- is imposed on the complainant, i.e, Pradhanpati for misleading and influencing the investigation and interrupting the inspection proceedings”, the Court ordered.