Cognizance Taken By Police For Offence U/S 195A IPC Bad In Law, Only Court Can Consider Matters Relating To False Evidence: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently held that the police is not competent to register an offence under Section 195A (threatening any person to give false evidence) of the Indian Penal Code and that only a court is competent to consider an offence in relation to false evidence.

A single bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed that

“When the threat dealt in Section 195 of IPC is giving false evidence, that is a matter to be considered by the court and in view of the matter, it has to be held that a police officer cannot register a crime in relation to an offence under Section 195 A of IPC and for which procedure under Section 195 read with 340 of Cr.P.C. should have been followed.”

The court was considering a bail application filed by a person accused of threatening an approver in a murder case . The police recorded the First Information Statement of the complainant, and registered the crime under Sections 195 A of IPC and under Section 120 (O) (Penalty for causing nuisance and violation of public order) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011.

Advocates Vinay Ramdas, K B Anamika Ullas, Kumar T G appearing for the petitioner contended that only the court alone can proceed against a person, for an offence under Section 195 A of IPC, following the procedure prescribed in Section 195 read with Section 340 of the Cr.PC.

Section 195A is a cognizable offence under the schedule of the CrPC, and in case of a cognizable offence, the police has the power to investigate into the case and the power to arrest without a warrant. However, it was argued by the petitioner that the term ‘complaint’ under Section 195A of the CrPC suggests that affected party has to file the complaint before the Magistrate for an offence under Section 195A IPC.

Whereas, Senior Public Prosecutor P G Manu, relied on the schedule of the CrPC in which an offence under Section 195A IPC is categorized as “cognizable, non-bailable” and contended that the police had the power to take cognizance. It was also argued by the prosecutor that since the trial had not begun, if the petitioner were to be released on bail, he would repeat his actions and would also try to intimidate witnesses.

The court observed that

“The conundrum as regards to the competence of the police to register a crime when offence under Section 195 IPC is alleged sprang up for consideration only on the ground that the offence is classified as 'cognizable'. It is relevant to note that, as I have already pointed out, Section 195 A of IPC was introduced with effect from 16.04.2006 in between Section 195 and Section 196. It is pertinent to note further that all other offences dealt under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. are 'non-cognizable'.

The court concluded that the police cannot take cognizance of an offence under Section 195A, and that matters pertaining to false evidence are to be decided by the court.

Holding the cognizance taken of the offence under Section 195 A of IPC to be bad in law, the court granted bail to accused. However, the court also observed that the allegations against him are serious.

The court imposed bail conditions including a direction to the accused to not pressurize or threaten the de facto complainant or witnesses. The court also made it clear that the cancellation of bail can be sought for by the prosecution in case of violation of any of the bail conditions.

The court also clarified that the de facto complainant has the right to move the appropriate court by filing a complaint under Section 195A of the CrPC.

Case Title: Suni @ Sunil V State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 169

Click here to read/download the judgment