IMPORTANT POINT
Though 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 Devi1 [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 t