New Delhi: The legal debate centres on Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 195A which punishes “threatening any person to give false evidence”. It allows imprisonment up to seven years, or fine, or both.
Historically, courts grappled with whether such offences warrant immediate registration of a First Information Report (FIR) by the police — or if the procedural protections under Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) Section 195 and Section 340 must be followed first.
What is Section 195A IPC
Section 195 CrPC bars a court from taking cognisance of certain offences (including those against public justice, documents used as evidence, or contempt of lawful authority) unless a written complaint is filed by a public servant or the court itself.
What is Section 340 CrPC
Section 340 CrPC provides the mechanism for the court to order an inquiry before lodging a complaint in such matters.
Read Also: Justice Surya Kant’s Journey from Hisar’s Fields to the Supreme Court of India
In parallel, jurisprudence around Section 188 IPC offences (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) had already established that a complaint by a public servant is essential before cognisance.
In a recent landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India clarified that for offences under Section 195A IPC, the police cannot directly register an FIR without the court-driven complaint process. This decision aligns with prior High Court rulings (for example, Kerala HC) which held that police registration under Section 195A IPC is bad in law.
Key Highlights of the Ruling
The Court reaffirmed that when an offence falls under Section 195A IPC (threat to give false evidence) it is inherently tied to court proceedings (because false evidence undermines the administration of justice).
Accordingly, Section 195 CrPC’s bar on taking cognisance without a complaint applies — meaning an FIR cannot simply be lodged by police on their own motion.
The appropriate route is a complaint in writing by the court, or an officer authorized by the court, or by a public servant competent to file such a complaint.
The decision emphasises witness-protection and due process: while threats to witnesses are grave, the procedural safeguards must be respected to avoid misuse or harassment.
It also clarifies police investigating under Section 156 CrPC (police investigations) cannot circumvent the bar in Section 195 CrPC merely by registering an FIR under Section 195A.
What This Means for Police & Justice System
For Police Stations: Before registering an FIR under Section 195A IPC, officers must check whether a written complaint authorised under Section 195 CrPC exists. If not, proceeding on FIR alone may be invalid.
For Victims / Witnesses: If a witness is threatened, they or others may approach the court via Section 340 CrPC to initiate inquiry and thereby enable complaint-filing.
For Prosecutors / Courts: Ensures offences closely connected to judicial proceedings carry the higher safeguard of the complaint route; prevents direct police action without judicial oversight.
For Defence / Accused persons: Offers a procedural check against potential misuse of Section 195A IPC via direct FIRs, which may be quashed for lack of proper complaint.
