Bar U/S 195 CrPC Not Applicable On Proceedings U/S 211 IPC Where No Related Judicial Proceeding Exists: Delhi High Court
The High Court held that the restriction under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) does not apply where the alleged false complaint was not made in or in relation to any judicial proceeding.
Justice Sanjeev Narula, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court dismissed petitions filed by a company and its directors seeking quashing of a complaint and summoning order under Sections 211, 34, and 120-B of the IPC, holding that the bar on prosecution under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC was inapplicable since no judicial proceeding was pending or concluded at the time of taking cognisance.
The High Court was hearing petitions filed under Sections 482 and 483 CrPC challenging the summoning order issued by a Magistrate in connection with a complaint filed by a finance company alleging that the petitioners had instituted false criminal proceedings with the intent to cause injury.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Narula, while deciding the matter, held that “at the time cognizance was taken, there existed no judicial proceeding, pending or concluded, in or in relation to which the alleged offence under Section 211 IPC could have been committed. The embargo under Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C. is therefore inapplicable, and the Magistrate rightly assumed jurisdiction to take cognizance and issue summons to the Petitioners.”
The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir, while Additional Standing Counsel Rupali Bandhopadhya and Advocate Bharat Chugh represented the respondents.
Background
The case stemmed from a long-standing commercial conflict between a hotel company and a finance firm. The latter had earlier provided financial assistance for a five-star hotel project under a memorandum of understanding executed in 1995.
Subsequent disagreements led to multiple criminal complaints and litigations before different forums. The finance firm alleged misappropriation and fraud by the hotel company, while the hotel company filed counter-complaints alleging theft and misuse of confidential documents from the Income Tax Department.
One such complaint was closed after the authorities clarified that no theft had occurred and the records remained in official custody. The finance firm thereafter lodged a private complaint alleging that the hotel company and its directors had conspired to file false cases to exert pressure, thereby committing offences punishable under Sections 211, 34, and 120-B IPC.
After considering pre-summoning evidence, the Magistrate issued summons in 2009. The petitioners’ challenge before the High Court sought quashing of both the complaint and the summoning order, arguing that cognizance was barred under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC.
Court’s Observation
The Delhi High Court examined the scope of Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC, which restricts courts from taking cognisance of certain offences, such as those under Sections 193 to 211 IPC, unless a written complaint is filed by the court in which, or in relation to which, the offence was committed.
The High Court observed that the restriction is designed to prevent private individuals from launching prosecutions that could interfere with judicial administration, but must be narrowly construed so as not to deprive genuine complainants of a remedy.
Referring to precedents including M.L. Sethi v. R.P. Kapur (1966), Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (2005), and Bandekar Bros. v. Prasad Vassudev Keni (2020), the Court clarified that the bar under Section 195 applies only if three conditions coexist: The alleged offence falls under Section 211 IPC, there exists a proceeding before a court; and the offence was committed in or in relation to that proceeding.
In the case at hand, the Court observed that none of these conditions were satisfied. The Court noted that the complaints by the hotel company were filed before the police and did not result in any judicial proceedings. Therefore, no link existed between the alleged false accusations and any case pending before a court.
The Court further held that the Magistrate’s order demonstrated due application of mind and satisfied the limited threshold applicable at the stage of summoning, and thus no interference was warranted under Section 482 CrPC.
Conclusion
Dismissing the petitions, the Delhi High Court upheld the Magistrate’s order taking cognisance and issuing summons to the petitioners, clarifying that the petitioners were free to raise all legal defences, including the applicability of Section 182 IPC and allegations of suppression of facts, before the trial court.
The Court emphasised that its findings were confined to the legality of the summoning order and did not express any opinion on the merits of the case, which would be independently assessed at trial.
Cause Title: Sunair Hotel Limited v. The State & Another; Kaveen Gupta & Others v. The State & Another (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:9148)
Appearances
Petitioners: Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Senior Advocate with Gurpreet Singh, Jatin Sethi, Shwetank Tyagi, and Chandra Shekhar Anand, Advocates
Respondents: Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC with Abhijeet Kumar, Advocate, Bharat Chugh, Ashok Kumar Sharma, Maanish M. Choudhary, Jai Allagh, and Anuna Tiwari, Advocates