Police can register FIR for witness intimidation: SC

New Delhi, Oct 28 The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that the offence of threatening a witness to give false evidence under Section 195A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is cognisable, and police can register an FIR without requiring a court’s complaint.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe said: "Once the offence under Section 195A IPC is classified as a cognisable offence, the power of the police to take action in relation thereto under Sections 154 CrPC and 156 CrPC cannot be doubted."

The Justice Sanjay Kumar-headed bench was hearing special leave petitions (SLPs) filed by the state of Kerala and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), challenging High Court orders that had quashed proceedings on the ground that such cases required a written complaint from the court concerned under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

In its decision, the apex court opined that Section 195A of the IPC, introduced in 2006, was "conceptualised as an offence distinct and different" from those under Sections 193 to 196 IPC.

"The threat to a witness may be given long before he comes to the court, though the giving of false evidence, under such threat, is in 18 connection with a proceeding before that court. That is, perhaps, the reason why this offence was made cognisable so that the threatened witness or other person may take immediate steps," it observed.

Clarifying the procedure, the Supreme Court said Section 195A CrPC, inserted in 2009, provides only an "additional remedy" allowing a witness or any other person to file a complaint before a magistrate.

"The use of the word ‘may’ in Section 195A CrPC indicates that it is not compulsory for a threatened witness or other person to only approach the magistrate concerned to complain of the offence under Section 195A IPC," the top court ruled.

Setting aside the Kerala High Court’s order dated April 4, 2023, the apex court directed the accused to surrender before the trial court within two weeks.

However, the bench clarified that its decision "shall not preclude him from seeking bail afresh on other grounds, if warranted".

The Supreme Court also restored the Dharwad magistrate’s 2020 order taking cognisance of a CBI complaint related to the murder of Yogesh Goudar, and reinstated earlier proceedings that had been quashed by the Karnataka High Court.

It concluded that the interpretation taken by the Kerala and Karnataka High Courts was "erroneous and unsustainable".

Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor