2011 (11) TMI 889 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the maintainability of a private complaint against false statements made before the Rent Controller, the status of the Rent Controller as a "Court" under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the dismissal of the appeal challenging the summoning order under Section 193/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code.

Issue 1: Maintainability of Private Complaint:
The Appellant filed an Ejectment Application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, leading to the Respondent filing a complaint under Sections 193, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The Rent Controller's order stated that no action could be taken until the complaint was decided. The Appellant argued that the Respondent's actions were delaying proceedings. The Judicial Magistrate summoned the Appellants for trial under Section 193 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

Issue 2: Status of Rent Controller as a "Court":
The Appellants approached the High Court seeking to quash the complaint and summoning order, contending that the Rent Controller was not a "Court" under Section 195(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court held that private complaints could be maintained for false evidence before the Rent Controller, dismissing the Appellants' plea. The High Court's decision was based on the premise that the Rent Controller is not a Court, allowing private complaints for false statements.

Issue 3: Dismissal of Appeal:
The Appellants challenged the High Court's decision, arguing that the Rent Controller's status as a Court was crucial. The High Court refused to interfere with the Magistrate's order taking cognizance of the alleged offence under Section 193/120B of the Indian Penal Code. Citing previous judgments, including Prakash H. Jain v. Marie Fernandes and Om Prakash v. Ashwani Kumar Bassi, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Rent Controller, while quasi-judicial, is not a conventional Court and upheld the maintainability of private complaints. The appeal against the summoning order was dismissed, and interim orders were vacated.