FACTS
The present case involves two criminal appeals. One is filed by the State of Kerala, and another by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). In the Kerala case, an approver in a murder case was threatened to give false evidence. The police filed an FIR under Section 195A IPC. The accused (Suni) sought bail on the ground that the police cannot investigate without a complaint from the concerned court as required by Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC. The Kerala High Court agreed with the accused’s reasoning and granted bail. Similarly, in the CBI case, the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC treated the CBI’s report as a complaint under Section 195A CrPC and took cognizance. However, the Karnataka High Court set aside their orders on the ground that no complaint was filed by the court concerned under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC. In both cases, the opponent appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUES
Whether an offence under Section 195A of the IPC (threatening a person to give false evidence) requires a court’s complaint under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC? Or whether it can be investigated by the police as a cognizable offence under Section 154 and 156 CrPC?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 195A IPC (per-amendment)- threatening any person to give false evidence; cognizable offence.
Section 195 (1)(b)(i) CrPC- courts cannot take cognizance of offences under Sections 193-196 unless the court itself makes a written complaint.
Section 195A IPC (post-amendment)- a witness or any other person may file a complaint related to Section 195A.
Section 154-156 CrPC- provide the procedure for police registration and investigation of cognizable offences.
ARGUMENTS
APPELLANTS (State of Kerala and CBI)
The appellants argued that Section 195A IPC is classified as a cognizable offence under the CrPC’s First Schedule. That is why the police have the power to investigate without a prior court complaint. After the amendment, Section 195A CrPC allows any witness or person to file a complaint and not just the court. This expresses the Legislature’s intent to create an independent route. This is different from what Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC. They highlighted the intent behind Section 195A IPC and argued that it was made cognizable to enable immediate police action when a witness is threatened.
RESPONDENTS (Accused persons)
The Respondents argued that Section 195A IPC is placed within Chapter XI, which is on False Evidence and Offences Against Public Justice. That is why it should be governed by Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC, which requires a court complaint. They argued that allowing police action without involving the court will erode the judicial safeguards that have been provided under Sections 195 and 340 CrPC. They cited the case of Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma to argue that where a special mode of prosecution is provided, general provisions like Section 154 CrPC cannot apply. [Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma and others (2021) 12 SCC 674].
ANALYSIS
The Court observed that the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma, which is relied upon by the respondents, deals with an entirely different subject matter. It was related to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, which expressly said that prosecution could be initiated only by the persons named therein. In that context, the Court had held that a police officer could not register an FIR under Section 154 CrPC. This is why the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma is not applicable in this case.
The Respondents suggested that the offence under Section 195A IPC should be split up into two, depending on whether it occurs before the Court or outside of the Court. If it occurs in relation to a Court proceeding, then the complaint would have to be made according to Section 340 CrPC. However, if it occurs outside of the court, then Section 195 (1)(b)(i) CrPC would not be applicable, and the Court cannot make any complaint. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that it would be contrary to the provision. It was observed that the doctrine of casus omissus (“a case of omission”) cannot be applied where the language of a statute is unambiguous, as it is not the function of the Court to substitute its words with those of the legislation. [S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1]
The Court engaged in a statutory interpretation to come to a conclusion. It stated that Section 195A IPC is different from those under Sections 193, 194, and 195 IPC. The latter offences require a complaint to be made only by those named in Section 195 (1)(b)(i) CrPC, and they are non-cognizable offences. However, an offence under Section 195A IPC is explicitly made a cognizable offence and is related to inducing a person to give false evidence by intimidation. This can be long before the court proceedings actually start. To provide a remedy, it was made cognizable to allow the threatened witness or any other person to take immediate steps. This can be done through filing an FIR or by making a complaint to a Magistrate under Section 195A CrPC.
The amended version of Section 195A IPC and Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC have to be read harmoniously. It noted that every effort should be made to give effect to each and every word used by the legislature. [Nathi Devi vs. Radha Devi Gupta (2005) 2 SCC 271] Section 195A provides an additional remedy to set criminal law in motion before a Magistrate. The Court emphasized that “may” in Section 195A CrPC makes it voluntary in nature and not mandatory to file a complaint before a Magistrate.
JUDGMENT
Following the above reasoning, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Kerala and Karnataka High Courts and held that the offence under Section 195A IPC is cognizable. Since it is cognizable, it can be investigated by the police under Sections 154 and 156 CrPC. There is no need for a complaint under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC.
CONCLUSION
In the present case, the Supreme Court resolves a procedural confusion and clarifies that Section 195A IPC is distinct from other perjury-related offences. This ensures that threats to witnesses can be addressed promptly through FIRs.
Click here to read more: STATE OF KERALA vs Sunil
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: FARZEEN ZAMAN
