Supreme Court: Police Can Directly Register FIR For Threatening Witness Under Section 195A IPC Without Court Complaint
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe on Tuesday (October 28) held that threatening a witness to give false evidence under Section 195A of the Indian Penal Code is a cognizable offence, enabling the police to register an FIR and investigate without awaiting a complaint from the court. The Bench set aside the Kerala High Court’s view that such offences could be prosecuted only through a written complaint by the concerned court under Sections 195 and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court clarified that Section 195A IPC empowers law enforcement to act directly in cases of witness intimidation and restored the related proceedings while directing the accused in the Kerala case to surrender, leaving open the option to seek bail on other grounds.
The matter arose from criminal proceedings concerning the interpretation of Section 195A of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalizes threatening a person to give false evidence. In Kerala, an FIR was registered by the officer-in-charge of Koratty Police Station, Thrissur Rural, alleging that a prosecution witness who had turned approver in a murder case was threatened with consequences if he did not give false testimony. The accused sought bail before the Kerala High Court, arguing that the police lacked authority to register the case without a written complaint from the court under Sections 195 and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court accepted this contention and granted bail. The State of Kerala appealed to the Supreme Court.
In the Karnataka case, the Central Bureau of Investigation, probing the killing of one Yogesh Goudar, reported that witnesses were intimidated before their court examination, leading them to turn hostile. The CBI’s communication was treated as a complaint under Section 195A CrPC, and cognizance was taken by the magistrate. The Karnataka High Court later set aside the orders taking cognizance and dismissing a discharge petition, holding that the prescribed procedure under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC had not been followed. The CBI appealed.
The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the offence under Section 195A IPC is cognizable—allowing the police to act independently under Sections 154 and 156 CrPC—or whether it requires initiation by a written complaint of the court under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC. The Bench examined both statutory provisions and their legislative context.
The Court stated that “the issue presently is as to how the offence under Section 195A of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), has to be construed and dealt with.” It noted that “Section 195A IPC was conceptualized as an offence distinct and different from those under Sections 193 IPC, 194 IPC, 195 IPC and 196 IPC.”
It recorded that “those offences require a complaint to be made only by those named in Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC and they were all non-cognizable offences. However, an offence under Section 195A IPC was a cognizable offence and pertained to inducing a person to give false evidence by intimidating him/her with threat of injury.”
The Bench remarked that “the lawmakers did not deem it necessary to clarify whether the offence under Section 195A IPC was to be treated as an exception to the procedure prescribed for the other offences.” It further noted that “Section 195A CrPC was introduced in the statute with effect from 31.12.2009… [making it clear that] a witness or any other person may file a complaint in relation to an offence under Section 195A of the Indian Penal Code.”
The judgment stated that “the threatened witness or other person may take immediate steps by either giving oral information of the commission of this cognizable offence to the concerned police officer, under Section 154 CrPC, or by making a complaint to a jurisdictional Magistrate, under Section 195A CrPC.” It added that “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… would only cripple and hamper the process.”
The Court noted that “Section 195A CrPC, therefore, aimed at bringing clarity to the issue. The threatened witness or other person could approach the police or file a complaint… so that the process relating to cognizable offences could commence immediately.” It concluded that “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.”
The Court held that “the interpretation placed upon such provisions by the learned Judges of the Kerala and Karnataka High Courts is held to be erroneous and unsustainable.” It ordered that “the order dated 04.04.2023 passed by the Kerala High Court in B.A. No. 556 of 2023 is set aside and the bail granted to the accused, Suni @ Sunil, is set aside. He shall surrender before the Trial Court within two weeks.” It further clarified that “as bail was granted to him only on the limited ground of the procedure under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC not being followed… this order
“The orders dated 22.01.2025 passed by the Karnataka High Court… are set aside. In consequence, the cognizance order dated 04.12.2020… shall stand restored… The appeals are, accordingly, allowed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: 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 the Respondents: Ms. Minakshi Vij, AOR Mr. Alok Bhatt, Adv. Mr. Jagriti Singh, Adv.
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Suni @ Sunil and Connected Cases
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1260
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. ______ of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6238 of 2024)
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe
