Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 28) ruled that the offense of threatening a witness under Section 195A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is a cognizable offense, empowering the police to directly register an FIR and investigate, without waiting for a formal complaint from a court.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe set aside the Kerala High Court's decision which held that an FIR for offence pertaining to threating a witness under Section 195A IPC cannot be registered by the police, and such offenses could only be prosecuted through a written complaint by the concerned Court under Sections 195 and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

Disapproving the High Court's decision, the Court explained that Section 195A IPC was deliberately conceptualized as a distinct offense with a different procedural pathway and being a cognizable offence, the police is empowered to directly register FIR based on threatened witness statements.

“Section 195A IPC was conceptualized as an offense distinct and different from those under Sections 193, 194, 195 and 196 IPC. Those offenses required a complaint to be made only by those named in Section 195(1)(b)(i) CRPC and they were all non-cognizable offenses. However, an offense under Section 195-A IPC was a cognizable offense and pertained to inducing a person to give false evidence by intimidating him or her with threat of injury either to his or her person or reputation or property or to the person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested.”, the court observed.

The judgment emphasized that requiring a threatened witness to first approach the Court for a complaint would be an impractical hurdle.

"Requiring that person to go before the court concerned... and inform it about that threat thereby necessitating a complaint under Section 195(1)(b)(i) along with an inquiry under Section 340 CrPC would only cripple and hamper the process," the Court added.

Reaffirming the police's power, the Court observed:

"The undeniable fact remains that the offense under Section 195-A IPC is a cognizable offense 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."

Background

The appeal was filed against the Kerala High Court's decision by the State of Kerala against the grant of bail to the Respondent-accused in connection with an offence under Section 195A IPC for threatening the witness (approver) in a murder trial proceeding where the Respondent was arrayed as an accused.

The High Court granted bail to the Respondent-accused, noting that the police are not authorised to register an FIR for offence under Section 195A IPC, and only Court is empowered to register complaint against the said offence.

Setting aside the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court clarified the law on FIR registration for an offence under Section 195A IPC, and allowed the State's appeal, directing the Respondent to surrender before the trial court within two weeks.

To be updated after the judgment is uploaded.

Cause Title: STATE OF KERALA VS. SUNI @ SUNIL (AND CONNECTED CASE)

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) Mr. Raghenth Basant, Sr. Adv. Mr. Harshad V. Hameed, AOR Mr. Dileep Poolakkot, Adv. Mrs. Ashly Harshad, Adv. Mr. Mahabir Singh, Adv. Ms. Kaushitaki Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anshul Saharan, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Ms. Minakshi Vij, AOR Mr. Alok Bhatt, Adv. Mr. Jagriti Singh, Adv.