Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from proceedings under Section 12 of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act, where a landlord initiated vacancy proceedings against a tenant. The initial order was in favour of the landlord, but the appellate authority set it aside and directed fresh consideration. Meanwhile, the tenant filed an application before the Additional District and Sessions Judge under Section 340 CrPC seeking filing of a complaint against the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, the landlord, and other authorities. The first application was dismissed on 17-2-1977 as not pressed, with an observation that no prima facie case was made out. Later, after the decision in the rent control appeal, the tenant moved another application, which was decided on 1-6-1981. The Additional District and Sessions Judge ordered that the file be sent to the court of Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Bulandshahr for filing a complaint against five persons under Sections 200/202/245/197/34 IPC or any other proper section. The appellant, one of the persons against whom the complaint was to be filed, challenged this order before the High Court by way of an application under Section 482 CrPC. The High Court dismissed the application without entering into merits, holding that the order was appealable under Section 341 CrPC and therefore the revision/application under Section 482 was not maintainable. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was whether the order dated 1-6-1981 directing the file to be sent to the Rent Control Officer for filing a complaint could be treated as an order making a complaint under Section 340 CrPC, amenable to appeal under Section 341 CrPC. The Supreme Court examined the definition of 'complaint' in Section 2(d) CrPC, which means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate with a view to his taking action, excluding a police report. The Court noted that the order only sent the file to the Rent Control Officer to file the complaint; it did not itself constitute a complaint before a Magistrate. Further, Section 340(3) CrPC requires that a complaint made under that section be signed by the presiding officer of the court, and the order did not comply with this requirement. Therefore, the order could not be construed as a complaint, and no appeal lay under Section 341 CrPC. The High Court erred in dismissing the Section 482 application as not maintainable. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and remitted the matter to the High Court for a fresh decision on merits of the Section 482 application in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Appeal Under Section 341 CrPC - Requirement of a 'Complaint' - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 341, 2(d), 340(3) - The High Court dismissed the appellant's Section 482 application on ground that the order directing filing of complaint was appealable under Section 341 CrPC - The Supreme Court held that an appeal under Section 341 lies only against an order making or refusing to make a complaint, and a 'complaint' under Section 2(d) can be made only before a Magistrate; the order dated 1-6-1981 merely sent the file to the Rent Control Officer to file complaint, not a complaint itself, and under Section 340(3) a complaint made under that section must be signed by the presiding officer, which was absent - Held that no appeal lay under Section 341 and the High Court erred in rejecting the Section 482 application as not maintainable (Paras 1-3). B) Criminal Procedure - Maintainability of Section 482 Application - Distinction Between 'Filing of Complaint' and 'Direction to File Complaint' - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 482 - The appellant challenged an order directing filing of complaint before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, and the High Court dismissed the application as barred by Section 341 appeal - The Court held that since the impugned order was not a complaint and no appeal lay under Section 341, the Section 482 application was maintainable; the matter was remitted to the High Court to decide the application under Section 482 afresh on merits - Held that the appeal succeeded, the High Court order was set aside, and the matter remitted (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the application under Section 482 CrPC on the ground that the impugned order directing filing of complaint was appealable under Section 341 CrPC
Final Decision
The appeal succeeded and was allowed. The order of the High Court was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the High Court for deciding the application under Section 482 CrPC afresh on merits in accordance with law.
Law Points
- An order merely directing an authority to file a complaint is not a 'complaint' under Section 2(d) CrPC
- appeal under Section 341 CrPC lies only against making or refusing to make a complaint
- complaint under Section 340 CrPC must be signed by presiding officer
- Section 482 CrPC remains maintainable against such direction
