The offence under Section 195A IPC is a cognizable offence so the power of the police to take action in relation thereto under Sections 154 CrPC and 156 CrPC cannot be doubted

Appeal

2. In Maktool Singh vs. State of Punjab, this Court had observed that precision and brevity are generally the hallmarks of legislative draftsmanship. The cases on hand, however, bear testimony to how laxity in such draftsmanship can generate and be a source of litigation.

Issue is how the offence under section 195A IPC to be dealt with

3. The issue presently is as to how the offence under Section 195A of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), has to be construed and dealt with. Section 195A IPC reads as follows: –

“Section 195A – Threatening any person to give false evidence”

History of introduction of section 195A IPC

4. This offence was introduced in the IPC with effect from 16.04.2006, vide Act No. 2 of 2006. It found place in Chapter XI, titled ‘Of false evidence and offences against public justice’. Section 191 was the first provision in this chapter and was titled ‘Giving false evidence’. It stated that, whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence. Section 192 IPC defined ‘Fabricating false evidence’ and Section 193 IPC provided the punishment therefor. It reads thus:

“193. Punishment for false evidence”

Scope and Object of section 193 IPC

5. The offences under paras 1 and 2 of Section 193 IPC were both non-cognizable, as reflected in the First Schedule to the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The offence under para 1 was triable by a Magistrate of First Class while the offence under para 2 thereof was triable by any Magistrate. Both the offences were bailable.

6. Section 194 IPC dealt with ‘Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of capital offence’ and it reads as under: –

“194. Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of capital offence”

The offences under para 1 and para 2 above were also non-cognizable and they were both triable by a Court of Sessions. Further, both offences were non-bailable.

7. Section 195 IPC dealt with giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of offence punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of seven years or upwards. This offence was non-cognizable, non-bailable and was triable by a Court of Sessions.

Section 196 to 200 IPC

8. Sections 196 to 200 IPC dealt with other facets of perjury, i.e., using evidence known to be false; issuing or signing a false certificate; using as true a certificate known to be false; false statement made in declaration which is by law receivable as evidence; and using as true such declaration knowing it to be false. All these offences were punishable in the same manner as if the person convicted therefor gave/fabricated false evidence. All these offences were also non-cognizable.

Section 195 Cr.P.C

9. Parallelly, Section 195 CrPC was titled ‘Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence’. For the purposes of these cases, Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC is of relevance. It reads thus: –

“195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. –

(1) No Court shall take cognizance –

(a) …

(b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), 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) …

(iii) …

except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.

(2) ……..”

Under section 195 (1)(b)(i) Cr.p.C except on a complaint in writing of that court or by such officer cognizance could be taken by court

10. Therefore, as per the scheme of Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC, an offence punishable under Sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive) could not be taken cognizance of by a Court, when such offence was alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of that Court, as may be authorized by that Court in writing in that behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.

11. The procedure to be followed in such cases was detailed in Section 340 CrPC. This provision reads as under: –

“340. Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195”

Inquiry procedure under section 195 Cr.P.C explained

12. It is clear from a plain reading of the afore stated provision that if, upon receiving an application, any Court is of the opinion that an inquiry should be made into the offences referred to in Section 195(1)(b) CrPC, which appear to have been committed in, or in relation to, a proceeding in that Court or in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court it may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks fit, record a finding to that effect and make a complaint thereof in writing to a jurisdictional Magistrate of First Class.

What is meant by complaint? Explained

13. Now, a look at more general provisions which are also of relevance. The word ‘Complaint’ was defined by Section 2(d) CrPC to mean any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under the CrPC, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but did not include a police report. The Explanation appended thereto, however, clarified that a report made by a police officer in a case which disclosed, after investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint; and the police officer by whom such report was made shall be deemed to be the complainant.

Cognizable offence and non-cognizable offence explained

14. ‘Cognizable offence’, as defined by Section 2(c) CrPC, meant an offence for which, and ‘cognizable case’ meant a case in which, a police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule thereto or under any other law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant. A 7 ‘non-cognizable offence’, as defined by Section 2(l) CrPC, meant an offence for which, and ‘non-cognizable case’ meant a case in which, a police officer had no authority to arrest without warrant.

Information and investigation

15. Section 154 CrPC dealt with information being given of the commission of a cognizable offence and how it was to be processed. Section 155 CrPC dealt with how information as to commission of a non-cognizable case was to be processed and investigated. Section 156 CrPC dealt with a police officer’s power to investigate a cognizable case. These provisions, to the extent relevant, read as under: –

When information as to non-cognizable offence is given to police officer he must record the same in the manner prescribed and refer the informant to magistrate

16. The above provisions make it clear that the procedure to be followed apropos a cognizable offence is vastly different from the procedure relating to a non-cognizable offence – in the context of how information as to commission of such offence is to be dealt with and how it is to be investigated. When information as to commission of a non-cognizable offence is given to a jurisdictional police officer, he must record the same in the manner prescribed and refer the informant to a Magistrate. Section 155(2) CrPC makes it clear that a non-cognizable case cannot even be investigated without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit it for trial. It is only after receipt of such order that a police officer can exercise the same powers in respect of investigation, except the power to arrest without warrant, as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in relation to a cognizable case.

17. This being the scheme obtaining at the time that Section 195A IPC came to be inserted in the statute book, the issue is as to how the offence thereunder is to be dealt with. The conundrum arises due to the fact that Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC remained unchanged even after insertion of Section 195A IPC. As noted earlier, Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC stated that offences punishable under Sections 193 IPC to 196 IPC (both inclusive) could not be taken cognizance of until a complaint in writing was made by the Court concerned or by an officer authorized by that Court or by a superior Court. Section 195A IPC, introduced in 2006, obviously fell between Sections 193 IPC to 196 IPC but the issue is whether the same procedure would apply to the offence thereunder.

18. Notably, in Salib alias Shalu alias Salim vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, this Court found, on facts, that the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 195A IPC were not made out and, therefore, while noting that the said offence was a cognizable one whereby a police officer would have the power to investigate it, the question as to whether Section 195 CrPC would apply to that offence was left open.

19. Pertinent to note, when Section 195A IPC was inserted in the statute book in the year 2006, an amendment was also made in the First Schedule to the CrPC, inserting Section 195A IPC therein, specifically categorizing it as a ‘cognizable offence’, unlike the offences under Sections 193 IPC, 194 IPC, 195 IPC and 196 IPC, which were shown as non-cognizable offences. Significantly, an amendment was also made in Section 195(1) of the CrPC by the very same Act No. 2 of 2006, with effect from 16.04.2006, whereby the phrase ‘or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf’, came to be inserted in addition to the existing ‘except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate’. Unfortunately, while making this amendment in Section 195(1) CrPC, the lawmakers did not deem it necessary to clarify whether the offence under Section 195A IPC was to be treated as an exception to the procedure prescribed for the other offences, referred to in Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC, by excluding it specifically from the ambit thereof. However, in the year 2009, Section 195A CrPC was introduced in the statute with effect from 31.12.2009, vide Act No. 5 of 2009. This provision reads as under: –

‘195A. Procedure for witnesses in case of threatening, etc.- A witness or any other person may file a complaint in relation to an offence under section 195A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).’

20. This provision made it clear that a witness or any other person could file a complaint about commission of an offence under Section 195A IPC. This procedure was demonstrably dichotomous with the procedure under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC, as the offences enumerated thereunder required the complaint to be made only by the Court concerned or by an officer authorized by that Court or by a superior Court. In that scenario, there was no possibility of any other person making a complaint independently. Section 195A CrPC made it manifest that this was not the case with an offence under Section 195A IPC!

Difference of opinion and observations of different High Courts regarding Section 195A IPC

21. The ticklish issue of Section 195A IPC has troubled several High Courts resulting in contradictory and inconsistent views. In Rahul Yadav vs. State and another, a learned Judge of the Delhi High Court observed that the offence under Section 195A IPC was a cognizable one and, therefore, it was within the power of the police officer concerned to register an FIR. The learned Judge observed that Section 195A CrPC only provided an additional remedy of filing a complaint in relation to the offence punishable under Section 195A IPC but it did not declare the offence under Section 195A IPC to be a non-cognizable offence.

22. In Abdul Razzak vs. State of M.P. and another, a learned Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court affirmed and followed the view taken in Rahul Yadav (supra). On similar lines, in Homnath Niroula vs. State of West Bengal, a learned Judge of the Calcutta High Court observed that the restriction imposed on procedure under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC was not applicable to cases arising under Section 195A IPC. Again, in Ramlal Dhakad and others vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, a learned Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court noted that the act of threatening a person with the intention of making him give false evidence constituted an offence under Section 195A IPC and actual false evidence being given in Court, pursuant to such threat, is not the requirement. The action of the police officer in registering an FIR in relation to the offence under Section 195A IPC was, accordingly, held to be lawful and valid.  

23. On the contrary, in Neput Rajiyung @ Action Dimasa @ Miput Rajiyung vs. State of Assam and another, a learned Judge of the Gauhati High Court opined that a separate procedure is laid down in Sections 195 CrPC, 340 CrPC and 195A CrPC for launching prosecution in relation to certain cognizable offences, including the offence of witness threatening under Section 195A IPC. The learned Judge concluded that prosecution under Section 195A IPC can be launched by a witness or any other person only by way of a complaint before a Magistrate and not by way of an FIR before a police officer. This view was followed by a learned Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sazid vs. State of Madhya Pradesh.

24. In the cases on hand also, the High Courts of Kerala and Karnataka proceeded under the assumption that the procedure under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC was required to be followed in the context of an offence committed under Section 195A IPC.

Argument of splitting section 195A IPC into two is rejected

26. The further argument of the learned senior counsel is that the offence under Section 195A IPC should be split up into two. His argument requires the provision to be interpreted in such a manner as to create two categories of offences, that is, if the offence under Section 195A IPC is committed in or in relation to a proceeding before the Court, then the complaint would have to be made by the Court under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC duly following the procedure under Section 340 CrPC. However, if the offence under Section 195A IPC is committed not in, or in relation to, a proceeding before the Court, then Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC would not be applicable so the Court cannot make a complaint in relation thereto and it is for the victim of such offence to then file a complaint under Section 195A CrPC. We find no merit in this argument as it practically requires us to rewrite the provision contrary to how it actually reads.

28. From the statutory scheme, as set out supra, it is clear that Section 195A IPC was conceptualized as an offence distinct and different from those under Sections 193 IPC, 194 IPC, 195 IPC and 196 IPC. Those offences require a complaint to be made only by those named in Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC and they were all non-cognizable offences. However, an offence under Section 195A IPC was a cognizable offence and pertained to inducing a person to give false evidence by intimidating him/her with threat of injury either to his/her person or reputation or property or to the person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested. The threat to a witness may be given long before he comes to the Court though the giving of false evidence, under such threat, is in connection with a proceeding before that Court. That is, perhaps, the reason why this offence was made cognizable so that the threatened witness or other person may take immediate steps by either giving oral information of the commission of this cognizable offence to the concerned police officer, under Section 154 CrPC, or by making a complaint to a jurisdictional Magistrate, under Section 195A CrPC, so as to set the process of criminal law in motion. Requiring that person to go before the Court concerned, i.e., the Court in which the proceeding is pending in relation to which false evidence is to be given, and inform it about the threat received, thereby necessitating a complaint under Section 195(1)(b)(i) along with an inquiry under Section 340 CrPC, would only cripple and hamper the process.

29. Section 195A CrPC, therefore, aimed at bringing clarity to the issue. The threatened witness or other person could approach the police or file a complaint in relation to an offence under Section 195A IPC so that the process relating to cognizable offences could commence immediately. The use of the word ‘may’ in Section 195A CrPC indicates that it is not compulsory for a threatened witness or other person to only approach the Magistrate concerned to complain of the offence under Section 195A IPC. Given the scheme and structure of both the statutes, i.e., the IPC and the CrPC, in the context of the offence under Section 195A IPC, we are not persuaded by the argument that the word ‘may’ in Section 195A CrPC should be read as ‘shall’. The undeniable fact remains that the offence under Section 195A IPC is a cognizable offence and once that is so, the power of the police to take action in relation thereto under Sections 154 CrPC and 156 CrPC cannot be doubted. As the said offence is classified as a cognizable offence, the process of criminal law can as well be set in motion by giving information of the commission of such offence to the concerned police officer under Section 154 CrPC. It is only by way of an additional remedy that Section 195A CrPC permits the threatened witness or any other person acting on his behalf to file a complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate to set the process of criminal law in motion. This aspect has already been touched upon by this Court, though in the passing, in Salib (supra). This, in our considered opinion, is the proper and correct method of construing and giving effect to the relevant provisions in relation to an offence under Section 195A IPC.

Conclusion

The orders dated 22.01.2025 passed by the Karnataka High Court in Criminal Petition No. 11719 of 2023 and Criminal Revision Petition No. 123 of 2023 respectively are set aside. In consequence, the cognizance order dated 04.12.2020 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge & Principal Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Dharwad, shall stand restored. Further, the dismissal of the discharge application filed by the petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No. 123 of 2023, Sri Basayya Thirakaya Hiremath, by the learned LXXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, vide order dated 14.07.2022, shall also stand restored.   

Judgments involved or cited with citations

• Maktool Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1999 3 SCC 321.
• Salib alias Shalu alias Salim vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2023 20 SCC 194.
• Rahul Yadav vs. State and another, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8271.
• Abdul Razzak vs. State of M.P. and another, 2023 SCC OnLine MP 7152; ILR 2024 MP 1067.
• Homnath Niroula vs. State of West Bengal, 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 7323.
• Ramlal Dhakad and others vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, MCRC No. 31316 of 2020 (decided on 22.01.2024).
• Neput Rajiyung Action Dimasa Miput Rajiyung vs. State of Assam and another, 2023 6 Gauhati Law Reports 302.
• Sazid vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 SCC OnLine MP 4583.
• Union of India vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma and others, 2021 12 SCC 674.
• S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India, 1994 3 SCC 1.Nathi Devi vs. Radha Devi Gupta, 2005 2 SCC 271.

Acts and Sections Involved

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)

• Section 191: Giving false evidence
• Section 192: Fabricating false evidence
• Section 193: Punishment for false evidence
• Section 194: Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of capital offence
• Section 195: Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of offence punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of seven years or upwards
• Section 195A: Threatening any person to give false evidence (The central issue of the case)
• Sections 196 to 200: Dealing with other facets of perjury, such as using evidence known to be false
• Sections 205 to 211 (inclusive) and Section 228 (These are mentioned as being covered under Section $195(1)(b)(i)$ CrPC)
• Chapter XI: Titled ‘Of false evidence and offences against public justice’

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)

• Section 2(c): Definition of ‘Cognizable offence’ and ‘cognizable case’
• Section 2(d): Definition of ‘Complaint’
• Section 2(l): Definition of ‘Non-cognizable offence’ and ‘non-cognizable case’
• Section 154: Information in cognizable cases (FIR)
• Section 155: Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases
• Section 156: Police officer’s power to investigate cognizable case
• Section 190: Magistrate empowered to order investigation
• Section 195: Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence
• Section 195(1)(b)(i): Relevant part dealing with offenses under Sections 193 to 196 IPC requiring a Court complaint
• Section 195A: Procedure for witnesses in case of threatening, etc. (Introduced in 2009)
• Section 340: Procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195 (CrPC)
• Section 482: Saving of inherent power of High Court (Used by the accused to approach the High Court)
• Section 227: Discharge
• Chapter XIII: Jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in Inquiries and Trials (Reference in Section 156 CrPC)
• First Schedule: Lists of cognizable and non-cognizable offenses

Other Acts

• Kerala Police Act, 2011
  • Section 120(o): Offense charged in the Kerala FIR, read with Section 195A IPC
• Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940
  • Section 32: Dealt with in a cited case (Union of India vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma) regarding cognizance of offenses
  • Chapter IV: Chapter of the Act under which the cited offense arose

Party

State of Kerala versus Suni @ Sunil – Criminal Appeal Nos. 4647 of 2025 – 2025 INSC 1260 – October 28, 2025 – Hon’ble Mr. Justice SANJAY KUMAR, J and Hon’ble Mr. Justice ALOK ARADHE, J.