http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SURENDRA GUPTA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: BHAWAN DEVI (SMT) AND ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT05/04/1994

BENCH: SAHAI, R.M. (J) BENCH: SAHAI, R.M. (J) HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR  509            1994 SCC  (4) 657  1994 SCALE  (2)625

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: ORDER 1.   The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is if the High Court was justified in dismissing  the application  filed  under  Section  482,  Code  of  Criminal Procedure,  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  ’CrPC’)  by  the appellant  against order directing to file  complaint  under Sections 200/202/295/167/34, Indian Penal Code on the ground that  the  impugned order was appealable under  Section  341 CrPC. 2.   Proceedings  for declaring vacancy under Section 12  of U.P.  Urban  Buildings Act were initiated  by  the  landlord against  his  tenant.  They were decided in  favour  of  the landlord.   In  appeal  the  order was  set  aside  and  the appropriate authority was directed to decide the application afresh.  The tenant apart from pursuing his remedy under the Act filed an application before the Additional District  and Sessions  Judge under Section 340 CrPC for filing  complaint against the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, the  landlord and other authorities.  The application was dismissed on 17- 2-1977 as it was not pressed.  It was further observed  that even  otherwise no prima facie case was made out.  Later  on the  tenant  moved another application.  It was  decided  on 1-6-1981 after decision of the appeal under the Rent Control Act.  The order is extracted below :               "Called   out  -  Shri  Dayanand  Swaroop   is               present.   Opposite  party  was  not  informed               regarding  the  application for  fixing  early               date  so  from O.Ps no one turned  up.   Heard               Shri Dayanand Swaroop.  That this court  being               an  appellate  court has already  decided  the               Appeal  No. 82 of 1975 Bhagwan Dei v.  Surjeet               Kaur,  hence it would be proper to  send  this               file to the court of Rent Control and Eviction               Officer,  Bulandshahr  for  filing   complaint               against  the  abovesaid  five  persons   under

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

             Sections  200/202/245/197/34  IPC  or  in  any               other proper section." The  applicant approached the High Court against this  order by  way of revision under Section 482 CrPC.  The High  Court did  not  enter into merits as, according to it,  the  order being  appealable under Section 34 1, the revision  was  not maintainable. Section 341 of CrPC reads as under:               "341. (1) Any person on whose application  any               court  other than a High Court has refused  to               make a complaint under sub-section (1) or sub-               section  (2) of Section 340, or  against  whom               such a complaint has been made by such  Court,               may  appeal to the Court to which such  former               Court  is  subordinate within the  meaning  of               sub-section  (4)  of  Section  195,  and   the               superior Court may thereupon, after notice  to               the  parties concerned, direct  withdrawal  of               the complaint, or, as the case may be,  making               of the complaint which such former Court might               have made under Section 340, and, if it  makes               such complaint, the provisions of that section               shall apply accordingly.               (2)   An order under this section, and subject               to any such order, an order under Section 340,               shall  be  final and shall not be  subject  to               revision."               659               The  language  of  the section  is  plain  and               simple.   The  right of  appeal  is  conferred               against  filing  of  complaint.   What  is   a               complaint is clear from clause (d) of  Section               2 which reads as under:               "2. (d) ’complaint’ means any allegation  made               orally  or in writing to a Magistrate, with  a               view  to  his taking action under  this  Code,               that  some person, whether known  or  unknown,               has committed an offence, but does not include               a police report;" A complaint thus could be filed only before the  Magistrate. From the order dated 1-6-1981 it is clear that it only  sent the file to the Rent Control Officer to file the  complaint. The  appellant  had approached the High Court  against  this order.  The application under Section 482 CrPC was not filed against  filing of complaint but against direction  to  file complaint.   It could not be treated as complaint.   Further Section 340(3) of CrPC requires that a complaint made  under the  section  could be signed in cases other  than  the  one filed  by  the High Court by the presiding officer  of  that court.   The order of the Additional District  and  Sessions Judge  thus could not be construed as complaint.  No  appeal could be filed against it under Section 341 CrPC. 3.   In the result this appeal succeeds and is allowed.  The order  of  the  High  Court is set  aside.   The  matter  is remitted  back  to  it for deciding  the  application  under Section 482 afresh on merits in accordance with law. 660