Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.340 and 195 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.193 r/w. s.34 – False Evidence – Appellant alleged non-compliance of a High Court’s order dated 29.06.2014 by the respondents and filed contempt petition against them – Respondents filed a show cause showing compliance of the order dated 29.06.2014 – Accordingly, contempt proceedings were dropped – Thereafter, appellant filed private complaint against the respondent Nos.2 to 4 u/s. 193 r/w. s.34 of IPC alleging that respondents had made false and wrong statement in their show-cause affidavit before the High Court – Magistrate took cognizance of an offence punishable u/s. 193 of IPC on basis of the private complaint – Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 filed criminal revision petition before the High Court against the order of the Magistrate – High Court set aside the order of the Magistrate – On appeal, held: Supreme Court in M.S. Ahlawat case held that private complaints are absolutely barred in relation to an offence said to have been committed u/s.193 of IPC and that the procedure prescribed u/s.195 of Cr.P.C. are mandatory – Also, s.340 Cr.P.C. makes it clear that prosecution under this section can be initiated only by the sanction of the court under whose proceedings an offence referred to in s.195(1)(b) has allegedly been committed – The case in hand squarely falls within the category of cases falling u/s.195(1)(b)(i) of the Cr.P.C. as the offence is punishable u/s. 193 of the IPC – Thus, Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence punishable u/s.193 of the IPC on basis of a private complaint – High Court rightly set aside the order of the Magistrate – Perjury.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The offences under Section 195(1)(b)(i) and Section 195(1)(b)(ii) are clearly distinct. The first category of offences refers to offences of false evidence and offences against public justice, whereas, the second category of offences relates to offences in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court. [Para 13][650-F]
2. Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. lays down a rule to be followed by the court which is to take cognizance of an offence specified therein but contains no direction for the guidance of the court which desires to initiate prosecution in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in the latter court. For that purpose, one must turn to Section
340 which requires the court desiring to put the law in motion to prefer a complaint either suo motu or an application made to it in that behalf. [Para 14][650-G; 651-A]
3. Section 340 of Cr.P.C. makes it clear that a prosecution under this Section can be initiated only by the sanction of the court under whose proceedings an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b) has allegedly been committed. The object of this Section is to ascertain whether any offence affecting administration of justice has been committed in relation to any document produced or given in evidence in court during the time when the document or evidence was in custodia legis and whether it is also expedient in the interest of justice to take such action. The court shall not only consider prima facie case but also see whether it is in or against public interest to allow a criminal proceeding to be instituted. [Para 16][652-A-B]
4. This Court in M.S. Ahlawat case has clearly held that private complaints are absolutely barred in relation to an offence said to have been committed under Section 193 IPC and that the procedure prescribed under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. are mandatory. [Para 19][653-A]
5. The case in hand squarely falls within the category of cases falling under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Cr.P.C. as the offence is punishable under Section 193 of the IPC. Therefore, the Magistrate has erred in taking cognizance of the offence on the basis of a private complaint. The High Court has rightly set aside the order of the Magistrate in the Criminal Revision petition filed by the respondent Nos. 2 to 4. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the costs imposed by the High Court is set aside. [Paras 6 and 23][647-B; 655-B] Sachida Nand Singh and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Anr. (1998) 2 SCC 493 : [1998] 1 SCR 492 – inapplicable. M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana and another (2000)
1 SCC 278 : [1999] 4 Suppl. SCR 160 – relied on. Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam (1971) 1 SCC 774 :
[1971] Suppl. SCR 172 ; Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain and Anr. (1973) 2 SCC 406 : [1974] 1 SCR
78 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.