LexIQBAL SINGH NARANG & ORS. versus VEERAN NARANG
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 463 IQBAL SINGH NARANG & ORS. v. VEERAN NARANG (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2225 OF 2011) NOVEMBER 30, 2011 [ALTAMAS KABIR AND SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.] A B 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. c D 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. Case Law Reference: 1986 (1) P&H (DB) PLR 567 Referred to Para 7 (2001) 1 RCR Criminal 171 Approved Para 10 (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 G the Respondent. The Order of the Court was delivered by ORDER 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. 4. Appearing in support of the Appeal, Ms. lndu Malh
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.