JUDGMENT B.N. Katju, J. - This is an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. praying that the proceedings against the applicants in Criminal Case No. 134 of 1679 pending in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Agra be quashed. 2. It is alleged in the application that opposite party No. 2 filed .a complaint against the applicants in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Agra under Sections 193,465,468,147,11,199, I. P. C. which was dismissed on August 28, 1978 on the ground that it was not maintainable in view of Section 195(1) (b), Cr. P.C. Opposite party No. 2 thereafter filed a second complaint in the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate, Agra under Sections 193 467 468 471, I.P.C. 3. The learned Magistrate by his order dated March 18, 1978 summoned the applicants under Sections 4654681471 read with Section 34, I.P.C. An application was filed by the applicants in the Court of the learned Magistrate praying that this complaint be also dismissed as it was not maintainable in view of Section 125(1) (b), Cr.P.C. which was rejected by the learned Magistrate by his order dated June 9, 1978. 4. The dismissal of a complaint on the ground that it is barred by Section 195 (1) (b), Cr.P.C. does not, in my opinion, bar the filing of a fresh complaint on the same set of facts under Section 300. Cr.P.C. as it is mentioned in the application to sub-section (6) of Section 300, Cr.P.C. that the dismissal of a complaint is not an acquittal for the purposes of that section. 5. The main question that, however, requires determination, is whether the second complaint filed by opposite party No. 2, against the applicants is barred by Section 195(1) (b), Cr.P.C. It is stated in this complaint that opposite party No. 2 moved an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (Tahsildar) for the allotment of the Godown owned by applicants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 situated in Fatehabad town in his favour. 1, 2 and 3 situated in Fatehabad town in his favour. Applicant No. 1 filed an objection that the said Godown was not vaca u a- it was in the tenancy of applicant No. 1 Rent receipt issued by applicant No. 1 in favour of applicant No. 4 were filed before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (Tahsildar) and the applicants were also examined as witnesses and the Godown was thereafter allotted by the Rent Contro: and Eviction Officer (Tehsildar) in favour of opposite party No. 2. The appeal filed by applicant No. 4 against the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (Tahsildar) is pending before District and Sessions Judge, Agra. It was also alleged in the complaint that the rent receipts filed by the applicants before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (Tahsildar) were forged. Section 195(1), Cr.P.C. runs as follows : - "195(1) No court shall take cognizance - (a) (i) of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 185 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code or, (ii) of any abatement or, or attempt to commit such offence, or (iii) of any original conspiracy to commit such offence, except on tire complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate, (b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, namely, Sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed, in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any court, or (ii) of any offence described in Section 453, or punishable under Section 471, Section 475 or Section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court, or (iii) of any original conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abatement, of any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii), except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other court to which that Court is subordinate." 6. A plain reading of the aforesaid section shows that no Court can take cognizance of any offence described in Section 463 or punishable under Section 471, I.P.C. when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in a Court except on a complaint in writing of that Court on some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. If the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (Tahsildar) is a Court within the meaning of Section 195(1), Cr.P.C. then the complaint filed by opposite party No. 2 against the applicants under Sections 465,468, 471 read with Section 34, I.P.C. is obviously barred by Section 195(1) (b), Cr.P.C. 7. Section 34(1) and (2) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) runs as follows: - "34. Powers of various authorities and procedure to be followed by them (1) The District Magistrate, the prescribed authority or any (appellate or revising authority) shall for the purposes of holding any inquiry or hearing (any appeal or revision) under this Act have the same powers as are vested in the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining on oath; (b) receiving evidence on affidavit; (c) inspecting a building or its locality, or issuing commission for the examination of witnesses or documents or local investigation; (d) requiring the discovery and production of documents; (e) awarding, subject to any rules, made in that behalf, costs or special costs to any party or requiring security for costs from any party; (f) recording a lawful agreement compromise or satisfaction and making an order in accordance therewith; (g) any other matter which may be prescribed. (2) The District Magistrate, the prescribed authority or (appellate or revising authority) while holding an inquiry or hearing (any appeal or revision) under this Act, shall be deemed to be a Civil Court within the meaning of (Ss. 345 and 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) and any Proceeding before him or it to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 199 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code." 8. 345 and 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) and any Proceeding before him or it to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 199 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code." 8. It is clear from a reading of the above mentioned section that the District Magistrate or the officer authorised by the District Magistrate to exercise, perform or discharge all or any of his powers, functions, and duties under the Act are not Courts when they are holding any inquiry under the Act but are Vested with the same powers with which be Civil Courts are vested under the Code of Civil Procedure when trying a suit in respect of the matters mentioned in Section 34(1) of the Act. Under Section 34(2) of the Act the District Magistrate or the officers authorised by him to exercise, perform and discharge all or any of his powers, functions and duties under the Act while holding an inquiry shall be deemed to be a Civil Court, within the meaning of Sections 345 and 346 of the Cr.P.C. and any proceedings before him to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. Under sub-section (3) of Section 195, Cr.P.C. Court in clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 195, Cr.P.C. means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court and includes a tribunal or constituted by order under a Central Provincial or State Act and if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of that Section. It is obvious that the District Magistrate or the officer authorised by him to exercise, perform and discharge all or any of the powers, functions and duties under the Act is neither a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court but is a tribunal created under the Act to perform quasi-judicial functions. It has however, not been declared by the Act to be a Court for the purposes of Section 195, Cr.P.C. The District Magistrate or the Rent Control and Eviction Officer (Tahsildar) who is to A - 26 exercise, perform and discharge all or any of his powers, functions and duties under the Act is, therefore, not a Court within the meaning of Section 195, Cr. P.C. The complaint filed by opposite party No 2, is, therefore, not barred by Section 195(1) (b), Cr.P.C. 10. P.C. The complaint filed by opposite party No 2, is, therefore, not barred by Section 195(1) (b), Cr.P.C. 10. For the reasons given above, there is no merit in this application. It is accordingly rejected. The interim order dated July 1978 is vacated.