S.195A IPC | Police Can Register FIR For Offence Of Threatening Witness; Court's Complaint Not Needed : Supreme Court

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 authored by Justice Sanjay Kumar 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, i.e., the Court in which the proceeding is pending in relation to which false evidence is to be given, and inform it about the threat received, 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 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. 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. It is only by way of an additional remedy that Section 195A CrPC permits the threatened witness or any other person acting on his behalf to file a complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate to set the process of criminal law in motion."

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.

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

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1034

Click here to read/download the judgment

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.