The Supreme Court has ruled that offences under Section 195A IPC are cognizable, allowing police to register FIRs for threatening witnesses without requiring a court complaint, a major step toward stronger witness protection in India.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India has held that offences under Section 195A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, which deals with threatening or inducing a person to give false evidence, are cognizable offences, and do not mandatorily require a complaint from a Court under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe delivered the judgment while allowing appeals filed by the State of Kerala and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The ruling overturns decisions by the Kerala High Court and Karnataka High Court, both of which had previously quashed proceedings under Section 195A IPC on the ground that such cases required a formal Court complaint.
ALSO READ: Delay in Framing Charges: Supreme Court to Frame Nationwide Guidelines
Background of the Case
The appeals arose from two separate proceedings in Kerala and Karnataka:
- Kerala Case:
A witness in a murder trial alleged that they were threatened to give false testimony. The police registered an FIR under Section 195A IPC, but the Kerala High Court quashed the FIR, holding that it was invalid without a Court’s complaint as required under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC. - Karnataka Case:
In another murder investigation handled by the CBI, several witnesses alleged intimidation. The Magistrate took cognisance of a complaint filed under Section 195A CrPC, but the Karnataka High Court discharged the accused, ruling that only a Court complaint could initiate proceedings.
Both cases reached the Supreme Court after the respective State and Central authorities challenged the High Court rulings.
Supreme Court’s Observation
The Apex Court conducted an in-depth examination of the statutory framework governing offences related to false evidence. It noted that while Sections 193 to 196 IPC are non-cognizable and require a Court’s complaint, Section 195A IPC, which was introduced later, is classified as cognizable under the CrPC.
The Court held:
“Once the offence under Section 195A IPC is classified as a cognizable offence, the power of the police to act under Sections 154 and 156 CrPC cannot be doubted.”
The Bench further clarified that Section 195A CrPC provides an additional remedy, allowing a threatened witness to either:
- File a complaint before a Magistrate, or
- Approach the police directly to register an FIR for immediate protection.
The Supreme Court emphasized that requiring a threatened witness to first approach the trial Court under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC would delay justice and undermine witness protection. The Court observed:
“Such a requirement would cripple and hamper the process… This offence was made cognizable so that a threatened witness could take immediate steps.”
The Bench also rejected the argument that the word “may” in Section 195A CrPC should be interpreted as “shall”, explaining that this would deprive victims of the flexibility to seek instant police assistance.
The Supreme Court:
- Allowed the appeals filed by the State of Kerala and the CBI,
- Set aside the Kerala High Court judgment and the bail granted solely on procedural grounds, and
- Restored the cognisance order and reinstated proceedings in the Karnataka case.
The Court, however, granted liberty to the accused to seek fresh bail on other valid grounds.
Case Title:
State of Kerala v. Suni @ Sunil and connected matters
SLP (Crl.) No. 6238 of 2024
READ JUDGMENT
