RAM PARSHAD RASTOGI Vs. JAGDISH NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point which has been raised in this petition is interesting and one of importance. There was an eviction case pending before Rent Controller, Delhi, which had been filed by Sri Kishan Jaitley against Ram Parshad the present petitioner. An application was made before the Rent Controller by one Jagdish Narim undersection 476, Criminal Procedure Code, saving that Ram Parshad had committed an offence under section 193, Indian Penal Code, and praying that a complaint be made against him. It was alleged that the applicant had been summoned as a witness by Ram Parshad for the 8th of October, 1963 in the eviction petition and later on Rain Parshad did not wish to produce him as a witness and he got a wrong report made on the summons that the witness had refused to accept service. It was further alleged that Ram Parshad got another summons issued for the attendance of the aforesaid witness on the 28th of November, 1963 and on that occasion he forged his signatures on the summons and also noted that 3 had been received by the witness as diet money. According to the applicant he had never been served in that case and he had never received any diet money. The applicant thus sought prosecution of Ram Parshad under section 193, Indian Penal Code, for fabricating false evidence for the purpose of being used in judicial proceedings.

(2.) A preliminary objectlon was raised by Ram Parshad that such an application was not maintainable before the Rent Controller, who was not competent to make a complaint under section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, being not a 'Court'. It has been held by Shri P.K. Bahri, the 1st Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, repelling the preliminary objection, that the Controller has the power of a Court to file a complaint for an offence committed under section 193, Indian Penal Code, and to hold an inquiry under section 476, Criminal Procedure Code. It is against that order that Ram Parshad has come up to this Court under section 115, Civil Procedure Code, and Article 227 of the Constitution.

(3.) The contention which has been raised on behalf of the petitioner is that by now it is well settled that 'Rent Controller' is not a 'Court' and, therefore, the Rent Controller would have no jurisdiction to take action under section 476, Criminal Procedure Code. The material part of that section is as follows :-