ALAGIRISWAMI
Syed Hanifa – Appellant
Versus
Muhammad Khalifulla – Respondent
ORDER :- This is a petition to revise the order of the Rent Controller, Tiruchirapalli holding that he was competent to act under Section 476, Cri. P. C. and lay a complaint against the petitioner for offences under Ss. 465 and 471, I. P. C.
2. It should be made clear that the Rent Controller was only deciding the question of his competency to lay a complaint and he had not decided whether it was necessary in the interests of justice to lay such a complaint. That question still remains open.
3. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that the Rent Controller is not a civil, criminal or revenue Court, which under Section 476, Cr. P. C. is competent to lay a complaint in respect of any offences referred to in Section 195 (1) (b) or (c), Criminal P. C. The criteria for deciding what is 'a Court' has been succinctly set forth in the decision of the Supreme Court in Virindar Kumar v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 153 in para 6 :-
"..................It may be stated broadly that what distinguishes a Court from a quasi-judicial tribunal is that it is charged with a duty to decide disputes in a judicial manner and declare the rights of parties in a definite judgment. To decide in
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.