IQBAL SINGH NARANG & ORS.versusVEERAN NARANG

               (2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 463


             IQBAL SINGH NARANG & ORS.                        A
                             v.
                  VEERAN NARANG
         (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2225 OF 2011)

                   NOVEMBER 30, 2011
                                                              B
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.]

     Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 193, 420, 120-8 .:... Criminal
 complaint by respondent against appellants u/ss. 193, 420,
 120-8 for allegedly making false statements in judicial C
proceedings before the Rent Controller - Application
 containing the aforesaid allegation also filed before the Rent
 Controller in Rent Application filed by appellant No. 1 - Rent
 Controller disposed of the application holding that the
complaint filed ulss. 193, 420, 425 was yet to be decided and o
there was, therefore, no question of initiation of any action
against the appellant on the basis of the said complaint - ·
 Issuance of summons against appellants by Judicial
Magistrate to face trial u/ss. 1931120-8 - Subsequently, the
appellants filed application uls. 482 Cr.P. C. for quashing of E
the complaint filed by the respondent u/ss. 1931120-8 /PC
pending before the Judicial Magistrate as also the
Summoning Order - Dismissal of, by the High Court on the
ground that the Rent Controller is not a Court within the
meaning of s. 195(1) Cr.P. C. and that a private complaint F
would be maintainable in case of false evidence being
adduced or recorded before the Rent Controller - Held: 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 G
not a Court, as understood in the conventional sense and he
cannot, therefore, make a complaint u/s. 340 Cr.P. C. - Thus,
a complaint could be made by a private party in the
                           463                                H
    464     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A proceedings - There is no reason to quash the proceedings
    in which the appellants were summoned - East Punjab Urban
    Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - s. 13.

      Prakash H. Jain Vs. Marie Fernandes (2003) 8 SCC
  431; Om Prakash Vs. Ashwani Kumar Bassi (2010) 9 SCC
B 183 - relied on.

        Ram Krishan Vs. Santra Devi 1986 (1) P&H (DB) PLR
    567; lshwar Chand Gupta Vs. Chander Shekhar &Anr. (2001)
    1 RCR Criminal 171 - referred to.
c                         Case Law Reference:
     1986 (1) P&H (DB) PLR 567         Referred to      Para 7
     (2001) 1 RCR Criminal 171         Approved         Para 10

D    (2003) s sec 431                  Relied on        Para 12
     (2010) 9 sec 1s3                  Relied on        Para 12
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 2225 of 2011.

E       From the Judgment & Order dated 23.7.2007 of the Hig
    Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Misc. No.
    32515 of 2006.

          Vikas Mehta for the Appellants.

F        Ujjal Singh, J.P. Singh, Parvinder Singh, R.C. Kaushik for
    the Respondent.
          The Order of the Court was delivered by

                              ORDER
G
          ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Leave granted.

      2. On 3rd August. 1998, the Appellant No.1 filed an
  Ejectment Application under Section 13 of the East Punjab
  Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for eviction of the
H Respondent from the premises in question.
     IQBAL SINGH NARANG & ORS. v. VEERAN                     465
          NARANG [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
     3. The said Respondent filed Crl. RBT Complaint No.283/ A
19.8.2003/2.8.2005 against the Appellants before the lllaqa
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. B
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 No.111 of 1998,
which had been filed by the Appellant No.1, in which allegations
had been made that the Appellant No.1 had made"false c
statements therein. By order dated 14th March, 2005, 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 0
of any action against the Appellant on the basis of the complaint
filed by the Complainant/Respondent. According to the
Appellant, since the Respondent had not challenged the order
of the Rent Controller on the Application dated 14th March,
2005, the same had attained finality.
                                                                    E
     4. Appearing in support of the Appeal, Ms. lndu Malhotra,
learned 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      F
facts reveal that the Respondent had delayed the rent
proceedings, which are pending since 1998, by filing vexatious
and frivolous applications.
    5. On 20th April, 2006, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Amritsar, after observing that no offence under Section 420 IPC     G
had been made out against the accused, issued summons
against them to face trial under Section 193 read with Section
120-B IPC.
    6. Ms. Malhotra submitted that the Appellant Nos.1 and 2
appeared before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Amritsar,     H
    466   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A and were released on bail vide order dated 16th May, 2006.
  Subsequently, the Appellants filed Crl. Misc. No.32515 of 2006
  before the Punjab & Haryana High Court under Section 482 of
  the Code of Criminal Procec'ure, 1973, for quashing of the
  complaint filed by the Respondent under Sections 193/120-B
B IPC pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
  Amritsar, as also the Summoning Order dated 24th April, 2006.
  By its impugned judgment and order, the High Court dismissed
  Crl. Misc. No.32515 of 2006 filed by the Appellants on the
  ground that the Rent Controller is not a Court within the meaning
c 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. Ms. Malhotra submitted
  that the High Court had failed to consider the fact that the
  ejectment proceedings initiated by the Appellant No.1 were still
  pending before the Rent Controller and a similar application had
0
  been dismissed on the ground that the proceedings were still
  going on and that the Court had not formed any opinion in the
  matter.
       7. Having held that the Rent Controller is not a Court within
E the meaning of Section 195(1) Cr.P.C., the learned Single
  Judge also held that private complaints would be maintainable
  in case of allegations of false evidence before the Rent
  Controller. The learned Judge observed that the concept of the
  Rent Controller being a Court was erroneous and hence the
F decision of the Division Bench of the High Court in Ram
  Krishan Vs. Santra Devi [1986 (1) P&H (DB) PLR 567] was
  per incuriam.
       8. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the High Court
  chose not to interfere with the order passed by the learned
G Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence alleged to have
  been committed by the Appellants under Section 193/120-B
  IPC and dismissed the Misc. Case No.32515· \If of 2006 filed
  by the Appellants herein.
       9. On behalf of the Respondent it was urged that the order
H of the learned Single Judge, impugned in this appeal, was
      IQBAL SINGH NARANG & ORS. v. VEERAN                       467
           NARANG [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
based on a judgment of this Court and hence it did not suffer           A
from any irregularity or illegality. It was also urged that since the
Rent Controller was not a Court, a complaint under Section 195
Cr.P.C. in respect of false statements made before it, would
be maintainable at the instance of a private party,
notwithstanding the bar to filing of such complaint, except on a        B
complaint in writing of that Court, by such officer of the Court,
as that Court may authorize in writing in such regard. Learned
counsel submitted that no interference was called for with the
order of the High Court and the appeal was liable to be
dismissed.                                                              c
      10. The question which, therefore, arises for consideration
in this appeal is that even if the Rent Controller is held not to
be a "Court", whether any private complaint would be
maintainable in respect of statements alleged to have been
falsely made before it. While disposing of the Revisional               D
Application filed by the Appellants, the learned Single Judge
of the Punjab & Haryana High Court took note of a judgment of
the said Court in lshwar Chand Gupta Vs. Chander Shekhar
& Anr. [(2001) 1 RCR Criminal 171], in which it had been held
that the Rent Controller was not a Court and that a complaint           E
would lie under Section 195 Cr.P.C. in respect of statement
made before the Rent Controller at the instance of a private
party.
     11. The aforesaid question has fallen for consideration in
several cases before this Court and the consistent view which           F
has been taken is 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.
     12. In the decision rendered by this Court in Prakash H.           G
Jain Vs. Marie Fernandes [(2003) 8 SCC 431], this Court held
that the Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Rent
Control Act, 1999, is at best a statutory authority created for a
definite purpose and to exercise powers in a quasi-judicial
manner, but its powers were strictly circumscribed by the very          H
    468      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A statutory provisions which conferred upon it those powers and
  the same could be exercised in the manner provided therefor
  and subject to such conditions and limitations stipulated by the
  very provisions of law under which the Competent Authority itself
  was created. The aforesaid observations were made by this
B Court in the context of the powers conferred on the Competent
  Authority appointed under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act,
  1999, which included powers to condone the delay in the filing
  of the proceedings. It is in such circumstances that it was
  observed by this Court that the High Court had rejected the
c submissions made on behalf of the Appellant therein that since
  it had all the trappings of a Court, the Competent Authority was
  a Court in the eye of law and consequently possessed inherent
  powers to condone the delay. The High Court also rejected the
  said prayer upon observing that statutory authorities have to act
  within the powers conferred on them by Statute.
0
       13. The same views were also expressed by this Court in
  Om Prakash Vs. Ashwani Kumar Bassi [(2010) 9 SCC 183],
  wherein it was held that in the absence of a specific power
  being vested in the Rent Controller, it being a creature of
E statute, it could only act in terms of the powers vested in it by
  the Statute and could not, therefore, entertain an application
  under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay,
  since the Statute did not vest him with such power.
           14. The aforesaid decisions of this Court establish that
F   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.
G          15. 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 is,
    accordingly, dismissed. The interim orders passed earlier are
    vacated.
H
    N.J.                                       Appeal dismissed.