Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-004647-004647 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 17462/2024 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR |
| Bench |
|
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms cognizability of Section 195A IPC; overrules contrary High Court decisions |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law / Criminal Procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether offences under Section 195A IPC are exempt from the Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC procedure and permit FIR registration by police. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court holds that Section 195A IPC, introduced in 2006, is categorised as a cognizable offence in the CrPC schedule. The unchanged Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC does not extend to offences under Section 195A IPC. Section 195A CrPC (2009) grants witnesses or any person an additional right to complain before a Magistrate but does not oust police powers under Sections 154/156 CrPC. Harmonious construction of IPC and CrPC shows the legislature intended immediate police action for threats to witnesses. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts considering procedure for Section 195A IPC offences |
| Overrules |
|
| Follows | Salib alias Shalu alias Salim v. State of Uttar Pradesh |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Section 195A IPC is expressly listed as a cognizable offence; police may register an FIR under Section 154 CrPC.
- Section 195A CrPC (2009) confers an additional complaint mechanism before a Magistrate and is not exclusive or mandatory.
- Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC restrictions on offences “in relation to” court proceedings do not extend to Section 195A IPC.
- Doctrinal principle: courts must avoid treating statutory silence as casus omissus where the legislative scheme is clear.
- This judgment overrules High Court precedents requiring court‐led complaints and strengthens prosecutorial options for witness intimidation offences.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Statutory Context: Chapter XI IPC (Sections 191–200) deals with false evidence offences; Section 195A IPC introduced in 2006 under Chapter XI as a cognizable offence.
- CrPC Scheme: Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC bars cognizance of offences under Sections 193–196 IPC without court complaint; Section 340 CrPC prescribes procedure for such complaints.
- Amendment History: Act 2/2006 inserted Section 195A IPC into the cognizable schedule and amended Section 195 CrPC; Act 5/2009 introduced Section 195A CrPC, permitting any witness/other person to file a complaint.
- High Court Conflict: Various High Courts held Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC procedure mandatory for Section 195A IPC; others allowed police FIRs; conflicting interpretations needed resolution.
- Plain‐Meaning & Harmonious Construction: Section 195A IPC’s cognizable classification empowers police under Sections 154/156 CrPC; Section 195A CrPC offers an additional, not exclusive, complaint route.
- Doctrine Against Casus Omissus: Absent express legislative exclusion of Section 195A IPC from Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC, court must give effect to each provision without rewriting statutes.
- Conclusion: Police registration of FIRs for Section 195A IPC offences is valid; Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC and Section 340 CrPC procedures do not apply. High Court orders to the contrary are unsustainable.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (State of Kerala / CBI):
- Section 195A IPC is cognizable; police officers have power to register FIR under Sections 154/156 CrPC.
- Section 195A CrPC simply provides an additional remedy for witnesses or any person to complain; it does not bar police action.
- Legislative amendments manifest intent to treat Section 195A IPC separately from Sections 193–196 IPC.
- Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma is inapplicable due to different statutory context.
Respondent (Accused):
- Offences under Sections 193–196 IPC (including Section 195A IPC by inclusion) require a written court complaint under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC and inquiry under Section 340 CrPC.
- FIR registration without following Section 195 CrPC procedure is invalid.
- Section 195A IPC must be split into two categories, depending on relation to court proceedings, invoking Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC for the subset.
Factual Background
In two sets of appeals, the Kerala High Court quashed an FIR under Section 195A IPC for lack of court‐led complaint and granted bail to the accused, while the Karnataka High Court set aside cognizance orders on similar grounds in CBI witness‐intimidation cases. The Supreme Court entertained appeals by the State of Kerala and the CBI, addressing procedural irregularities in initiating prosecutions under Section 195A IPC.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 195A IPC (Act 2/2006): Threatening a person to give false evidence; cognizable offence punishable up to seven years, or equal penalty if innocent person convicted.
- Sections 193–196 IPC: Non-cognizable false evidence offences; require court complaint under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC.
- Section 195 CrPC: Bars cognizance of certain public-justice offences without written complaint by the Court or authorised officer.
- Section 340 CrPC: Lays down inquiry and complaint procedure for offences under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC.
- Section 195A CrPC (Act 5/2009): Empowers any witness or other person to file a complaint under Section 195A IPC, supplementing police powers.
Alert Indicators
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – Overturns multiple High Court rulings requiring court‐led complaints for Section 195A IPC offences.
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms Salib alias Shalu alias Salim v. State of U.P. (2023) 20 SCC 194.