The Supreme Court of India, in a significant judgment dated October 28, 2025, has settled the conflicting procedural law surrounding the offence of threatening a witness. The Court held that threatening a person to give false evidence, an offence under Section 195A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), is a cognizable offence, and the police are empowered to register an FIR and investigate it directly.
A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe ruled that the special procedure requiring a written complaint from a court, as mandated under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for other perjury-related offences, does not apply to Section 195A IPC.
The judgment arose from appeals filed by the State of Kerala and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against orders from the Kerala and Karnataka High Courts, respectively, which had quashed criminal proceedings initiated under Section 195A IPC on procedural grounds.
Background of the Cases
The Supreme Court addressed a legal conundrum stemming from “laxity in such draftsmanship” of the law, as observed by Justice Sanjay Kumar, who authored the judgment.
- Kerala Case (State of Kerala vs. Suni @ Sunil): The Koratty Police Station had registered an FIR under Section 195A IPC, alleging that the de facto complainant, an approver in a murder case, was threatened with dire consequences to compel him to give false evidence. The Kerala High Court, by order dated 04.04.2023, granted bail to the accused, Suni @ Sunil, holding that the police could not have registered the FIR and that the procedure under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC (requiring a complaint from the court) had to be followed. The State of Kerala appealed this order.
- Karnataka Cases (CBI Appeals): In a separate murder case investigation, the CBI found that witnesses were intimidated by the accused before their court examination and consequently turned hostile. The CBI brought this to the notice of the Principal Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Dharwad, which was treated as a complaint under Section 195A CrPC, and the court took cognizance on 04.12.2020. The Karnataka High Court, in orders dated 22.01.2025, set aside the cognizance and discharged an accused, ruling that the mandatory procedure under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC was not followed. The CBI appealed these orders.
The Legal Conundrum
The judgment noted the core issue:
- Section 195A was inserted into the IPC in 2006 and was simultaneously classified as a ‘cognizable offence’ in the First Schedule of the CrPC.
- However, Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC, which bars a court from taking cognizance of offences under “sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive)” except on a written complaint by the concerned court, was not amended to specifically exclude Section 195A, which falls numerically between 193 and 196.
- This led to conflicting High Court judgments. The High Courts of Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, and Calcutta held that an FIR was permissible, while the Gauhati High Court and other benches of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the special procedure must be followed.
- Furthermore, Section 195A was introduced into the CrPC in 2009, allowing “a witness or any other person” to file a complaint for this offence, creating what the Supreme Court termed a “demonstrably dichotomous” procedure.
Accused’s Arguments
The respondents (accused) argued that the offence should be “split up”: if the threat occurred “in or in relation to” a court proceeding, Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC (court complaint) must apply. If it occurred outside this context, then Section 195A CrPC (witness complaint) would apply.
The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating, “We find no merit in this argument as it practically requires us to rewrite the provision contrary to how it actually reads.”
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Supreme Court bench opted for a “harmonious construction” of the statutes, holding that the legislature’s intent was clear despite the drafting issues.
The Court held that Section 195A IPC was “conceptualized as an offence distinct and different” from perjury (Section 193) or fabricating false evidence (Section 194).
Justice Kumar noted that the threat to a witness often occurs long before the trial. The judgment states: “The threat to a witness may be given long before he comes to the Court… That is, perhaps, the reason why this offence was made cognizable so that the threatened witness or other person may take immediate steps by either giving oral information… to the concerned police officer, under Section 154 CrPC, or by making a complaint to a jurisdictional Magistrate, under Section 195A CrPC”.
The Court found that forcing a threatened witness to first approach the court where the proceeding is pending to initiate an inquiry under Section 340 CrPC “would only cripple and hamper the process.”
Clarifying the two available remedies, the Supreme Court held:
- As a Cognizable Offence (FIR): “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 a Witness Complaint (Sec 195A CrPC): The provision allowing a witness to file a complaint (Section 195A CrPC) is “only by way of an additional remedy.” The use of the word “may” in that section indicates it is not compulsory for the witness to only approach the Magistrate.
The Final Decision
Concluding that the interpretations by the Kerala and Karnataka High Courts were “erroneous and unsustainable,” the Supreme Court allowed both sets of appeals.
- In the Kerala matter, the High Court’s order dated 04.04.2023, was set aside, and the bail granted to Suni @ Sunil was cancelled. He was directed to “surrender before the Trial Court within two weeks.”
- In the Karnataka matters, the High Court’s orders dated 22.01.2025, were set aside. Consequently, the Magistrate’s cognizance order (04.12.2020) and the trial court’s dismissal of the discharge application were restored, reviving the proceedings against the accused.
