This Supreme Court judgment clarifies the procedural conflict regarding offences under Section 195A IPC (threatening to give false evidence). The Supreme Court holds that Section 195A IPC is a cognizable offence. Consequently, the police have the independent power to register an FIR and investigate under Sections 154/156 CrPC, and the restrictive complaint procedure under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC is not applicable.
Facts Of The Case:
The case originated from two separate sets of proceedings. In the first, from Kerala, an FIR was registered under Section 195A IPC after a de facto complainant, who had turned approver in a murder case, was threatened with dire consequences to give false evidence. The accused sought bail, arguing the mandatory procedure under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC—requiring a court’s written complaint—was not followed. The Kerala High Court agreed, granted bail, and the State appealed.In the second, from Karnataka, the CBI investigated a murder and found witnesses were intimidated by accused persons, causing them to turn hostile. The CBI brought this to a Magistrate’s notice, which was treated as a complaint under Section 195A CrPC, and cognizance was taken. The accused challenged this, arguing the cognizance was invalid as it did not originate from a court complaint under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC. The Karnataka High Court set aside the cognizance and a related discharge dismissal, siding with the accused. The CBI appealed. The core legal question before the Supreme Court in both appeals was whether the offence of threatening a witness under Section 195A IPC is governed by the restrictive complaint procedure of Section 195 CrPC or if it allows for a direct FIR by police.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of this case involves two parallel streams from the High Courts of Kerala and Karnataka, which were consolidated before the Supreme Court. In the Kerala matter, the accused was granted bail by the High Court, which ruled that the registration of an FIR for an offence under Section 195A IPC was invalid as the mandatory procedure under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC—requiring a complaint from the concerned court—was not followed. The State of Kerala appealed this order. Simultaneously, in the Karnataka matter, the High Court set aside a Magistrate’s order taking cognizance based on a CBI complaint, again on the ground that the Section 195 CrPC procedure was not complied with, and discharged the accused. The CBI appealed this decision. Both appeals, arising from Special Leave Petitions, were heard together by the Supreme Court to conclusively determine the applicable procedure for prosecuting the offence under Section 195A IPC.
READ ALSO:Injured Witness Testimony Crucial: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals in 1988 Double Murder Case
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made key observations to resolve the procedural conflict. It noted that Section 195A of the IPC, introduced in 2006, was deliberately categorized as a cognizable offence in the CrPC Schedule, unlike the adjacent non-cognizable offences under Sections 193-196 IPC. The Court further observed that the subsequent insertion of Section 195A in the CrPC in 2009, which allows a witness or any person to file a complaint, created a procedure demonstrably different from the restrictive court-complaint mechanism under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC. The Court held that interpreting the word “may” in Section 195A CrPC as “shall” would be incorrect, as it would nullify the cognizable nature of the offence and cripple the intended immediate remedy for a threatened witness. The statutory scheme, read harmoniously, establishes that an offence under Section 195A IPC can be set in motion either by an FIR to the police under Section 154 CrPC or by a complaint to a Magistrate under Section 195A CrPC, and is not shackled by the procedure under Section 195 CrPC.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned orders of the Kerala and Karnataka High Courts. It authoritatively held that the offence under Section 195A IPC is a cognizable offence, and therefore, the police have the independent power to register an FIR and investigate it under Sections 154 and 156 of the CrPC. The Court ruled that the restrictive procedure under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC, which mandates a complaint only from the concerned court, is not applicable to Section 195A IPC. Consequently, the bail granted to the accused in the Kerala case was cancelled, and the cognizance order taken by the Magistrate in the Karnataka case was restored. The judgment clarified that Section 195A CrPC provides an additional, optional remedy for a threatened witness to file a complaint before a Magistrate, but does not preclude the standard procedure for cognizable offences.
Case Details:
Case Title: State of Kerala vs. Suni @ Sunil Citation: 2025 INSC 1260 Criminal Appeal No.: (arising from SLP (Cri.) No. 6238 of 2024) and connected appeals. Date of Judgement: October 28, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe
Download The Judgement Here