1982 (1) TMI 203 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Abuse of Process of Law
2. Jurisdiction of Rent Control Officer as a Civil Court
3. Applicability of Section 195(1)(b)(i), Cr. P.C.
4. Validity of Criminal Complaint under Sections 193, 199, and 201 IPC

Summary:

1. Abuse of Process of Law:
The Supreme Court noted that the landlord, after losing in civil courts, initiated a frivolous criminal prosecution against the tenant, which appeared to be an abuse of the process of law. The complaint was filed by Maharaj Singh, an advocate, alleging that the appellants committed offenses u/s 193, 199, and 201 IPC.

2. Jurisdiction of Rent Control Officer as a Civil Court:
The Court examined whether the Rent Control Officer could be deemed a civil court. Section 34(1) of the Rent Act states that the District Magistrate or any authorized officer, while holding an inquiry, shall be deemed a civil court within the meaning of Sections 480 and 482 of the CrPC, 1898, and Sections 193 and 228 IPC. The Court concluded that the Rent Control Officer, being authorized by the District Magistrate, is deemed a civil court for the purposes of Section 193 IPC.

3. Applicability of Section 195(1)(b)(i), Cr. P.C.:
Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr. P.C. prohibits any court from taking cognizance of offenses u/s 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 211, and 228 IPC unless there is a complaint in writing from the court where the offense was committed. The Court held that since the Rent Control Officer is deemed a civil court, any false evidence given before it would attract Section 195(1)(b)(i), requiring a complaint from the Rent Control Officer for cognizance.

4. Validity of Criminal Complaint under Sections 193, 199, and 201 IPC:
The Court found that the complaint lacked specific allegations to constitute offenses u/s 199 and 201 IPC. There was no evidence of the appellants destroying any evidence or making false statements with the intention of screening an offender. The Court emphasized that mere rejection of evidence does not constitute falsity u/s 199 IPC. The invocation of criminal jurisdiction by the complainant, who had lost in civil proceedings, was deemed an abuse of the process of law.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and quashed the proceedings before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Secunderabad, citing abuse of the process of law and lack of jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offenses without a complaint from the Rent Control Officer.