Facts of the case
- The Appellant No.1 filed an Ejectment Application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for eviction of the Respondent from the premises in question.
- The said Respondent filed Crl. RBT Complaint against the Appellants before the Magistrate, under Sections 193, 420, 120-B IPC, for allegedly making false statements in judicial proceedings before the Rent Controller, Amritsar.
- The statement of the Complainant/Respondent was recorded before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Complainant/ Respondent also filed an application under Sections 193/420/425 IPC before the Rent Controller-cum-J.M. First Class, Amritsar, in Rent Application which had been filed by the Appellant No.1, in which allegations had been made that the Appellant No.1 had made false statements.
- The Rent Controller disposed of the application filed by the Complainant/Respondent in the rent proceedings upon holding that the complaint filed under Sections 193, 420, 425 IPC was yet to be decided and there was, therefore, no question of initiation of any action against the Appellant on the basis of the complaint filed by the Complainant/Respondent.
- In support of the Appeal, Senior Advocate contended that it was obvious from the number of applications moved by the Respondent before the Rent Controller that the same was merely a ploy to delay the proceedings and cause prejudice to the Appellant No.1. The facts reveal that the Respondent had delayed the rent proceedings, by filing vexatious and frivolous applications.
- The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amritsar, after observing that no offence under Section 420 IPC had been made out against the accused, issued summons against them to face trial under Section 193 read with Section 120-B IPC.
- The Appellant Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amritsar, and were released on bail.
- Subsequently, the Appellants filed appeal before the Punjab & Haryana High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing of the complaint filed by the Respondent under Sections 193/120-B IPC pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amritsar, as also the Summoning Order.
- The High Court dismissed appeal filed by the Appellants on the ground that the Rent Controller is not a Court within the meaning of Section 195(1) Cr.P.C. and held that a private complaint would be maintainable in case of false evidence being adduced or recorded before the Rent Controller.
- An appeal was made in the Supreme Court.
Judgment
The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that, “The Rent Controller, being a creature of Statute, has to act within the four corners of the Statute and could exercise only such powers as had been vested in him by the Statute. Though the Rent Controller discharges quasi-judicial functions, he is not a Court, as understood in the conventional sense and he cannot, therefore, make a complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C. Consequently, as held by the High Court, a complaint could be made by a private party in the proceedings. In addition to the above, we also see no reason to quash the proceedings in which the Appellants herein had been summoned under Section 193/420/120- B IPC.”
The appeal was dismissed.
BY: ANKIT RAJPUT