SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1968 Supreme(Mad) 170

ALAGIRISWAMI
Syed Hanifa – Appellant
Versus
Muhammad Khalifulla – Respondent


Advocates:
K. Ramaswami, for Petitioner; K. Sarvabhauman, for Respondent.

Judgement

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



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top