Witness Intimidation under Section 195A IPC is a Cognizable Offence: FIR Maintainable; Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC Filter Inapplicable; Complaint under Section 195A CrPC is an Additional, Optional Route

Introduction

In State of Kerala v. Suni @ Sunil, 2025 INSC 1260 (Supreme Court of India, 28 October 2025), a two-judge Bench comprising Sanjay Kumar, J. and Alok Aradhe, J. resolved a long-standing procedural puzzle surrounding prosecutions for witness intimidation under Section 195A of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The core question was whether offences under Section 195A IPC—threatening a person to give false evidence—must follow the “court-complaint” route under Section 195(1)(b)(i) read with Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), or whether they can be set in motion by a First Information Report (FIR) as cognizable offences, with Section 195A CrPC providing a parallel complaint route.

Conflicting High Court decisions had created uncertainty: some courts allowed FIRs for Section 195A IPC (Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Calcutta), while others insisted on a complaint procedure (Gauhati, certain MP decisions), often analogizing Section 195A to offences under Sections 193–196 IPC which do require the Section 195/340 filter. The Supreme Court harmonized the statutory scheme and held decisively that Section 195A IPC is cognizable; hence, police can register FIRs under Section 154 CrPC and investigate under Section 156 CrPC. Section 195A CrPC (introduced in 2009), which permits a “witness or any other person” to file a complaint, is an additional, optional route. The bar in Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC does not apply to Section 195A IPC.

Summary of the Judgment

• Section 195A IPC (inserted in 2006) is a cognizable offence as per the First Schedule to the CrPC; police may register an FIR and investigate without requiring a prior court complaint.
• Section 195A CrPC (inserted in 2009) allows a witness or any other person to file a complaint before the Magistrate; the provision uses the term “may,” which is permissive, not mandatory. It creates an additional, alternative pathway to set the law in motion, not the exclusive one.
• The procedural bar in Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC (requiring a court complaint for offences under Sections 193–196 IPC committed in or in relation to court proceedings) does not extend to Section 195A IPC. Offences under Sections 193–196 IPC remain non-cognizable and subject to the Section 195/340 complaint mechanism; Section 195A IPC is distinct.
• The Supreme Court rejected the argument to split Section 195A IPC into two categories (those in relation to court proceedings vs. those not), noting that such judicial redrafting is impermissible.
• Orders of the Kerala and Karnataka High Courts insisting on the Section 195/340 route for Section 195A IPC were set aside. Consequentially:
  • Kerala HC order granting bail solely on the ground of non-compliance with Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC was set aside; the accused must surrender, but may seek bail afresh on other grounds.
  • Karnataka HC orders quashing cognizance and allowing discharge were set aside; the Magistrate’s cognizance and the dismissal of discharge stand restored.

Factual Background and Procedural Posture

Kerala Matter

The Officer-in-Charge, Koratty Police Station (Thrissur Rural) registered FIR No. 1062 dated 05.12.2022 under Section 195A IPC read with Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, alleging threats to an approver in a murder case to coerce false testimony. The Kerala High Court granted bail to the accused on the premise that the court-complaint procedure under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC was mandatory. The State appealed.

Karnataka/CBI Matter

In the investigation of the murder of Yogesh Goudar, the CBI discovered witness intimidation leading to hostile witnesses. The CBI brought this to the Principal Civil Judge & Principal JMFC, Dharwad; treating it as a complaint under Section 195A CrPC, the Magistrate took cognizance on 04.12.2020. The Karnataka High Court later set aside the cognizance and a related order rejecting discharge, for want of compliance with Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC. The CBI appealed.

Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Considered

• Maktool Singh v. State of Punjab (1999) 3 SCC 321: Quoted to highlight the need for clarity in legislative drafting; sets the stage for harmonizing an imperfect scheme rather than rewriting it.
• Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of U.P. (2023) 20 SCC 194: Recognized that Section 195A IPC is cognizable; left open the interface with Section 195 CrPC. The present decision answers that open question.
• High Court decisions supporting FIRs under Section 195A IPC:
  • Rahul Yadav v. State (Delhi HC, 2018): Section 195A CrPC adds a remedy; does not negate cognizability or bar FIRs.
  • Abdul Razzak v. State of MP (MP HC, 2023/2024): Follows Delhi HC; FIR route valid.
  • Homnath Niroula v. State of WB (Cal HC, 2024): Section 195/340 restrictions do not apply to Section 195A IPC.
  • Ramlal Dhakad v. State of MP (MP HC, 2024): Threat with intent suffices; actual false testimony is not a precondition; FIR valid.
• High Court decisions insisting on complaint-route only:
  • Neput Rajiyung @ Action Dimasa v. State of Assam (Gauhati HC, 2023): Held that prosecution under Section 195A IPC lies only via complaint to the Magistrate.
  • Sazid v. State of MP (MP HC, 2022): Followed the complaint-only view.
  The Supreme Court disapproved this line of reasoning.
• Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma (2021) 12 SCC 674: Distinguished; that case turned on Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act which restricts who can institute prosecution—an entirely different statutory regime from the CrPC/IPC scheme here.
• S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1 and Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta (2005) 2 SCC 271: Cited for principles of statutory interpretation—courts must avoid supplying a casus omissus and should prefer harmonious construction giving effect to legislative text and structure.

Legal Reasoning

1. Legislative scheme and history:
   • Sections 193–196 IPC (false evidence/perjury offences) have always been non-cognizable and are subject to the Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC bar requiring a complaint by the court concerned (implemented via Section 340 CrPC).
   • Section 195A IPC was inserted by Act 2 of 2006 and specifically listed as cognizable in the CrPC First Schedule. Simultaneous amendments to Section 195(1) CrPC did not incorporate Section 195A IPC into its complaint bar.
   • In 2009, Section 195A CrPC was introduced, authorizing a witness or any other person to file a complaint in relation to an offence under Section 195A IPC—significantly broader than the court-complaint regime for Sections 193–196 IPC.
2. Distinct nature of Section 195A IPC:
   • Unlike perjury offences, Section 195A penalizes the preparatory coercion—threatening a person to give false evidence. This threat may occur long before a witness steps into court, though aimed at influencing testimony in a proceeding.
   • Because timely intervention is crucial to protect witnesses and the integrity of justice, the Legislature made Section 195A cognizable, enabling immediate police action via FIR under Section 154 CrPC and investigation under Section 156 CrPC.
3. Meaning of “may” in Section 195A CrPC:
   • The Court rejected the submission that “may” should be read as “shall.” Section 195A CrPC creates an optional, additional complaint route; it does not displace or condition the cognizable character of Section 195A IPC.
4. Harmonious construction; no judicial redrafting:
   • The Court declined to “split” Section 195A IPC into two categories (in relation to court proceedings vs. otherwise) to force-fit it under Section 195/340 CrPC in certain scenarios. Such redrafting would violate settled principles against supplying a casus omissus.
   • Proper harmony is to treat Sections 193–196 IPC as non-cognizable and complaint-gated, and Section 195A IPC as cognizable with an optional complaint pathway under Section 195A CrPC.
5. Practical coherence:
   • Requiring threatened witnesses to first approach the court seized of the main proceeding for a Section 340 inquiry would “cripple and hamper” timely protection and investigation. The Legislature addressed this by making the offence cognizable and adding an optional complaint route.

Impact and Significance

• National clarity: The decision settles conflicting High Court views and lays down a uniform, nationwide rule—police may register FIRs for Section 195A IPC. Courts should not insist on a Section 195/340 CrPC complaint for this offence.
• Strengthened witness protection:
  • Threatened witnesses can now promptly choose between approaching the police (FIR) or lodging a complaint before a Magistrate under Section 195A CrPC.
  • Facilitates quicker protective and investigative responses, reducing the risk of witness tampering and hostile turnarounds.
• Procedural economy:
  • Avoids burdening trial courts with preliminary Section 340 inquiries where prompt police investigation is more suitable.
• Interface with perjury prosecutions:
  • If, in a given case, both Section 195A IPC (threat) and Sections 193–196 IPC (false evidence/fabrication) are implicated, distinct procedural tracks apply: police can investigate the Section 195A IPC FIR, whereas a court complaint is still required to take cognizance of offences under Sections 193–196 IPC.
  • This decision does not dilute the Section 195/340 CrPC bar for perjury-type offences; it clarifies that the bar does not extend to Section 195A IPC.
• Law enforcement guidance:
  • Police should register FIRs on receiving information that threats were issued with the intent to induce false evidence. Usual safeguards (scrutiny of intent, contemporaneous material) apply.
• Adjudicatory outcomes:
  • Orders quashing Section 195A IPC proceedings solely for lack of a Section 195/340 complaint will not survive. Pending matters may be revisited in light of this ruling.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Cognizable vs. Non-Cognizable:
  • Cognizable: Police can register an FIR and arrest without warrant; they can investigate without prior Magistrate orders (Sections 154, 156 CrPC).
  • Non-cognizable: Police need a Magistrate’s order to investigate; arrest requires a warrant (Section 155 CrPC).
• Section 195/340 CrPC “Court-Complaint” Filter:
  • For offences like perjury (Sections 193–196 IPC) committed in or in relation to court proceedings, a court (or authorized officer) must first file a complaint; a regular police FIR route is blocked. The court may conduct a preliminary inquiry under Section 340 before making a complaint.
• Section 195A IPC (Threatening to Give False Evidence):
  • Targets coercion: threats to a person’s body, reputation, or property (or to those they care about) with the intent to make them give false testimony.
  • Actual false testimony is not required; the offence is complete with the threat and the requisite intent.
  • Enhanced punishment if an innocent person is convicted and sentenced due to the false evidence.
• Section 195A CrPC (2009):
  • Empowers a witness or any other person to file a complaint before the Magistrate regarding the Section 195A IPC offence—an optional alternative to the FIR route.
• Casus Omissus:
  • Judicial doctrine: courts should not fill legislative gaps by adding words not present in the statute unless there is clear necessity and context; the proper approach is to harmonize the existing text.
• Harmonious Construction:
  • Interpreting provisions so that each has effect without rendering any redundant. Here, Sections 193–196 IPC remain complaint-gated; Section 195A IPC remains cognizable with an optional complaint route.
• Approver / Hostile Witness:
  • An approver is an accomplice who is tendered pardon in exchange for testimony. A hostile witness is a witness whose testimony departs from prior statements, often due to intimidation or inducement.

Case-Specific Disposition

• Kerala appeal: The High Court’s order granting bail solely because Section 195/340 CrPC was not followed stands set aside; the accused must surrender within two weeks, but remains free to apply for bail on other grounds.
• Karnataka/CBI appeals: The High Court’s orders setting aside cognizance and allowing discharge are reversed; the Magistrate’s cognizance order dated 04.12.2020 and the Sessions Court’s order dated 14.07.2022 (dismissing discharge) are restored.

Practical Guidance Going Forward

• For police:
  • Register FIRs for Section 195A IPC when credible information indicates threats intended to procure false testimony.
  • Document the nature of threats, their connection (actual or intended) to testimony in a proceeding, and indicia of intent.
• For prosecutors:
  • Charge Section 195A IPC independently where the factual matrix supports threat-with-intent; if perjury offences (Sections 193–196 IPC) also arise, ensure compliance with Section 195/340 CrPC for those counts at cognizance stage.
• For courts:
  • Do not insist on a Section 195/340 complaint for Section 195A IPC. Cognizance on a police report is legally sound.
• For witnesses:
  • You can either file a police complaint (FIR) or directly file a complaint before the Magistrate under Section 195A CrPC. The choice is yours; both routes are valid.

Key Takeaways

• Section 195A IPC is a cognizable offence; FIRs and police investigations are permissible.
• Section 195A CrPC offers an alternative, optional complaint route for witnesses or other persons; “may” does not mean “shall.”
• Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC (and Section 340 CrPC) does not apply to Section 195A IPC; it continues to govern Sections 193–196 IPC.
• The Supreme Court rejects judicial redrafting and instead harmonizes the statutory scheme to give effect to legislative design and purpose.
• The ruling fortifies witness protection by enabling swift law enforcement response to intimidation aimed at corrupting testimony.

Conclusion

State of Kerala v. Suni @ Sunil establishes a clear and much-needed procedural rule: witness intimidation under Section 195A IPC is to be treated as a cognizable offence, actionable through the FIR route, while Section 195A CrPC furnishes a concurrent, optional complaint path. The decision harmonizes the IPC and CrPC amendments of 2006 and 2009, rejects an artificial splitting of Section 195A IPC, and confines the Section 195/340 complaint-gate to perjury-type offences (Sections 193–196 IPC).

Beyond doctrinal neatness, the ruling has substantial practical resonance. It strengthens the justice system’s capacity to protect witnesses and preserve the integrity of trials by enabling immediate police intervention against coercive tactics designed to suborn false testimony. Simultaneously, it preserves the procedural safeguards that filter perjury prosecutions, ensuring that the distinct legislative choices for threats (195A) and perjury (193–196) are respected. In short, it is a principled, purposive, and pragmatic ruling that will guide courts, police, and litigants in navigating the sensitive area of offences against public justice.