REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2225   OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP(Crl) No.5625 of 2007)

IQBAL SINGH NARANG & ORS. …   APPELLANTS   

VS.

VEERAN NARANG …   RESPONDENT

O R D E R

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  Respondent  from  the  premises  in  

question.   

3. The said Respondent filed Crl. RBT Complaint  

No.283/19.8.2003/2.8.2005  against  the  Appellants  

before the Illaqa 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 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 statements therein.  

By order dated 14th March, 2005, the Rent Controller  

disposed  of  the  application  filed  by  the  

2

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.  

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. Indu  

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  facts  reveal  that  the  Respondent  had  

delayed  the  rent  proceedings,  which  are  pending  

3

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 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, 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  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  

4

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 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  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 the meaning of Section 195(1) Cr.P.C.,  

the  learned  Single  Judge  also  held  that  private  

5

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 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 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-M of 2006 filed  

by the Appellants herein.    

9. On behalf of the Respondent it was urged that  

the order of the learned Single Judge, impugned in  

this appeal, was based on a judgment of this Court  

and hence it did not suffer from any irregularity  

6

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  

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.

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 Application filed by the Appellants, the  

7

learned Single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High  

Court took note of a judgment of the said Court in  

Ishwar  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  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 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. Jain Vs. Marie Fernandes [(2003) 8 SCC  

431], this Court held that the Competent Authority  

8

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 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 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  

submissions made on behalf of the Appellant therein  

that since it had all the trappings of a Court, the  

9

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.   

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  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 though the Rent Controller discharges quasi-

10

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.  

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.   

………………………………………………………J.    (ALTAMAS KABIR)

………………………………………………………J.                             (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR) New Delhi Dated: 30.11.2011

11