The Supreme Court has set aside a Calcutta High Court's order quashing a private complaint against alleged offences of giving false evidence, stating that private complaint can be pursued when the alleged acts occur before a tribunal which is not a court.

The Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah held that offences of giving false evidence before a tribunal can only be addressed through a private complaint, as the procedure under Sections 195 and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) applies exclusively to offences committed in proceedings before a Court, not a tribunal (which is not a Court).

During the hearing, AOR Vikash Singh appeared for the appellant, and Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra appeared for the respondent.

The case originated from a private complaint filed by the appellant before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, alleging offences under Sections 193 (false evidence), 199 (false statement made in declarations receivable as evidence), and 200 (using a false declaration as true) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The offences were allegedly committed before the Municipal Building Tribunal, which is not classified as a court under Indian law.

The respondent challenged the private complaint, arguing that under Section 195 read with Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), only a court could initiate such proceedings. The Calcutta High Court agreed, quashed the private complaint, and held that a complaint for such offences required the mandatory procedure under Sections 195 and 340 CrPC, applicable only to acts committed before a court.

The Court clarified that while Sections 193, 199, and 200 IPC can apply to offences committed inside or outside a court, the procedural requirements under Sections 195 and 340 CrPC are exclusive to acts occurring within judicial proceedings before a court. Since the Municipal Building Tribunal is not defined as a court, the appellant’s remedy was limited to filing a private complaint.

“We have no doubt that an offence under Sections 193, 199, or 200 IPC can theoretically be committed inside or outside a court. However, since the proceedings before the Municipal Building Tribunal were not before a court, the application of Section 195 read with Section 340 CrPC was not permissible. The only remedy in such cases is to file a private complaint,” the Bench observed.

The Court also referenced its previous decision in Iqbal Singh Narang v. Veeran Narang (2012), which held that tribunals not classified as courts can address such matters only through private complaints.

The Bench set aside the High Court's order and allowed the private complaint to proceed. The tribunal was directed to entertain the complaint and adjudicate it on its merits. The Court emphasized that its ruling was confined to the legal procedural question and clarified that the merits of the complaint would be determined independently by the tribunal. "We are of the considered view that in the present case the only route available for the appellant was to file a private complaint, and the Tribunal rightly had entertained such a complaint. The impugned order dated 05.02.2024 passed by the High Court is hence set aside. The complaint shall be entertained by the concerned tribunal, and thereafter, the orders shall be passed. We make it absolutely clear that we have allowed this application only on a technicality and a question of law. The fate of the complaint would lie on its merits to be decided by the Tribunal. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed," the Court said.

Cause Title: Anil Kumar J. Bavishi v. Mahendra Kumar Jalan @M.K Jalan [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 6845 of 2024]

Appearance:-

Appellant: Advocates Vikash Singh (AOR), S. Hariharan, K. M. Kalidharun

Respondent: Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, Advocates Somopriyo Chowdhury, Pritha Basu, Ashish Choudhury (AOR), Akash Agarwal, Debartha Chakraborty, Sougati, Anand Kamal, Abhishek Arora

Click here to read/download the Order


Justice Sudhanshu DhuliaJustice Ahsanuddin AmaahCode of Criminal Procedure

Sukriti Mishra

Legal Correspondent

Sukriti Mishra is a Legal Correspondent at Verdictum. She extensively covers the Supreme Court. She has completed her graduation with BA. LL.B (Hons.) from The ICFAI University, Dehradun. Sukriti started covering courts in March 2022, she has previously worked with another legal news portal, where she extensively covered Delhi High Court and Trial Courts. She believes Legal Journalism gives her creative freedom and legal in depth practical knowledge. She enjoys the diversity of her profession. Sukriti truly believes in bringing the raw courtroom exchanges to the general public through proper channels, especially with the high legal awareness in society.