Police Can Register FIR For Threatening Witness To Give False Evidence U/S. 195A IPC: Supreme Court

The Apex Court clarified that the police may register an FIR and investigate such offences under Sections 154 and 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Court was hearing appeals arising from decisions of the Kerala High Court and Karnataka High Court, both of which had quashed proceedings on the ground that cognisance under Section 195A IPC could only be taken upon a Court’s complaint under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC.

A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe, while clarifying the scope of Section 195A IPC, held 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.”

Suryaprakash V. Raju, A.S.G., and Senior Advocate Raghenth Basant appeared on behalf of the appellant-state, while Senior Advocate S. Nagamuthu represented the respondents.

Background

The appeals before the Supreme Court arose from two separate criminal proceedings of the Kerala and Karnataka High Courts. In the Kerala case, the police had registered an FIR under Section 195A IPC after a witness in a murder case alleged threats to induce false testimony. The High Court held that the FIR was invalid without a Court’s complaint under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC and granted bail to the accused.

In the Karnataka matter, during the investigation of a murder case transferred to the CBI, several witnesses had allegedly been threatened to turn hostile. A complaint was filed before the Magistrate under Section 195A CrPC, and cognisance was taken. The High Court set aside the cognisance order and discharged the accused, holding that only the procedure under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC could apply.

Aggrieved, the State of Kerala and the CBI approached the Supreme Court.

Court’s Observation

The Supreme Court undertook a detailed examination of the statutory scheme of the IPC and CrPC governing offences relating to false evidence. The Court noted that offences under Sections 193 to 196 IPC are non-cognizable and require a complaint by the Court concerned under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC. However, Section 195A IPC, inserted later, was held to have been classified as cognizable.

The Court, therefore, clarified that “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”.

The Apex Court, while observing that Section 195A CrPC provides an “additional remedy”, remarked that “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 Bench further held that compelling a threatened witness to first approach the Court where proceedings are pending, and thereby requiring the Court to initiate action under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC with an inquiry under Section 340 CrPC, would “cripple and hamper the process.”

This, the Bench observed, perhaps is 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, to set the process of criminal law in motion.”

The Bench also rejected the argument that the word “may” in Section 195A CrPC must be read as “shall”, holding that such an interpretation would deprive the witness of immediate protection.

Conclusion

Concluding that the views taken by the Kerala and Karnataka High Courts were unsustainable, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals.

The Court set aside the judgment of the Kerala High Court and cancelled the bail granted on the sole ground of procedural irregularity, while granting liberty to seek fresh bail on other grounds. The Court also restored the cognisance order and reinstated proceedings in the Karnataka case, including rejection of a discharge application.

Cause Title: State of Kerala v. Suni @ Sunil and connected matters (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1260)

Appearances

Appellant: Suryaprakash V. Raju, A.S.G. and Senior Advocate Raghenth Basant, with Advocates Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR, Harshad V. Hameed, AOR and others.

Respondent: Senior Advocate S. Nagamuthu, with Advocates Ashutosh Dubey, AOR, Sharan G. Patil, Minakshi Vij, AOR, Jagriti Singh, Pinki Singh, J. Joe Anton Beno, AOR, and others.

Click here to read/download Judgment