Safiya Malik

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court addressed the procedural nuances of prosecuting offences of false evidence under Sections 193, 199, and 200 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) when such offences are committed before a Tribunal, rather than a Court. The Bench, comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, examined whether the procedural requirements of Sections 195 and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), applied to such cases and clarified the remedies available to litigants in these circumstances.

The matter arose from a private complaint filed by the appellant before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, alleging that the respondent had committed offences of giving false evidence, making false statements in declarations receivable as evidence, and using such declarations knowing them to be false. The offences were purportedly committed before the Municipal Building Tribunal, a forum not defined as a "Court" under statutory provisions. The respondent, in response, sought quashing of the complaint under Section 482 CrPC before the Calcutta High Court, which allowed the plea and quashed the complaint. The High Court reasoned that the procedural framework under Sections 195 and 340 CrPC precluded the filing of private complaints in such cases.

The Supreme Court, upon examining the matter, observed that the procedural mandates of Sections 195 and 340 CrPC apply strictly to offences committed before a Court. The judgment stated: “Section 195 read with Section 340 CrPC prescribes a definite route which has to be mandatorily followed if such an offence is alleged to have been committed before a Court.” It further clarified: “The offences were allegedly committed before a Tribunal known as the Municipal Building Tribunal. It is an admitted fact that this Tribunal is not defined as a Court.”

Given that the Municipal Building Tribunal does not qualify as a Court under the law, the procedural route outlined in Sections 195 and 340 CrPC was deemed inapplicable. The Court stated that this does not leave a complainant without remedy, noting: “But this would not mean that a person is without remedy when such an offence is committed outside the Court, i.e., in any other forum, such as a Tribunal, which may not be a Court, like in the present case.”

The Supreme Court held that a private complaint is the appropriate remedy for prosecuting offences of false evidence when they occur outside a Court’s jurisdiction. The judgment elaborated: “We have absolutely no doubt in our mind that an offence under Section 193/199/200 IPC can theoretically be committed inside as well as outside a Court. The only way such an application can be entertained and that too, for the precise offences of Sections 193, 199, and 200 IPC, is through a private complaint and only relating to the offences before the Tribunal.”

To substantiate its decision, the Court referred to its previous ruling in Iqbal Singh Narang & Ors. v. Veeran Narang, (2012) 2 SCC 60, which affirmed the permissibility of private complaints for offences committed outside a Court’s purview. The judgment held that procedural limitations imposed by Sections 195 and 340 CrPC apply exclusively to offences occurring within the judicial domain of a Court and do not extend to other forums, such as Tribunals.

The appeal before the Supreme Court challenged the High Court’s decision to quash the private complaint on procedural grounds. Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and directed the concerned Tribunal to entertain the private complaint. It stated: “The complaint shall be entertained by the concerned Tribunal and thereafter, the orders shall be passed. We make it absolutely clear that we have allowed this application only on a technicality and a question of law. The fate of the complaint would lie on its merits to be decided by the Tribunal.”

The appeal was disposed of with specific directions to proceed with the private complaint, adhering to the procedural framework applicable to such circumstances.

Case Title: Anil Kumar J. Bavishi v. Mahendra Kumar Jalan @ M.K. Jalan
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 5490 of 2024 (SLP (Crl.) No. 6845 of 2024)
Bench: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah

[View/Download order]