SURINDER K VIJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition u/Sec. 482 of the Cr. P.C. (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the petitioner (accused) in the complaint filed u/Secs. 193, 199, 209 IPC, P.S. Subzi Mandi, Delhi prays for quashing the process issued.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of this petition, as suggested from the record, shortly stated, are that a complaint was filed by one Ranvir Malik son of late Shri S.S. Malik against the petitioner alleging offences u/Sec. 193,199 and 209 Indian Penal Code in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate; that the said complaint, by order dated 30.9.1991, by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi was dismissed on the ground that the Additional Rent Controller was a "Court" within the meaning of Section 175 of the Code and the complaint having not been filed on the complaint of the Additional Rent Controller, was found to be bad in law; that against the said order of dismissal of the complaint respondent No. 2 filed a criminal revision application u/Sec. 397 of the Code before the Sessions Court; that learned ASJ who heard the said criminal revision application decided the same against the petitioner, set aside the order passedby the Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing the complaint vide order dated 14.2.1994. Consequently the matter went back to the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate who by order dated 1.8.1994 issued summons to the petitioner for 29.11.94. It is this order of issue of summons which is assailed and sought to be set aside and quashed in this petition by the petitioner (original accused).

(3.) . It is submitted by Mr. Malhotra, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the complaint is an abuse of process of law; that Additional Rent Controller is a civil Court; that proceedings are pending before the Rent Controller and the plea taken in written statement in the rent matter by the petitioner would be adjudicated upon and during the pendency of the rent proceedings, respondent No. 2, the land-lord has filed this complaint just to pressurise the petitioner to succumb to his illegal pressure; that when the controversy is pending before the Rent Controller, no criminal complaint could have been filed by respondent No. 2 unless the Rent Controller has given the final order and u/Sec. 195(l)(b) of the Code unless Court itself has filed a complaint for the offences u/Secs. 193,199,209, Indian Penal Code the cognizance of the complaint could not have been taken by the Magistrate Court. As against this, it is submitted by Mr. Gandhi, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 that the private complaint is maintainable for the aforesaid offences; that there is no complaint u/Secs. 199,209, IPC; that Section 36 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as DRC Act) is not for Sections 193 and 228, Indian Penal Code only; that Additional Rent Controller is only a Court for the contempt and it is not a Court for the purpose of Section 195 of the Code.