Ill-Motivated' FIR: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Under Section 182 IPC For Lack Of Proper Compliance With Section 195 CrPC

"The offence under Section 182 of the IPC, read with the provisions of Section 195 of the CrPC, is a matter between the public servant and the offender; the settlement between private parties does not put an end to that, but the law must be strictly followed." Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling, has underscored the mandatory procedural requirements under Section 195 of the CrPC, holding that a criminal complaint under Section 182 IPC cannot be sustained when initiated by a private party rather than the aggrieved public servant.

A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside a High Court order that had refused to quash a pending criminal case, observing that the proceedings were "ill-motivated" and lacked the requisite legal sanction.

The dispute arose from a bitter marital discord involving the second respondent and the family of her deceased husband, which included the appellant, Lilly Goyal. While the primary matrimonial disputes and ancillary litigation between the families had been resolved through a settlement deed dated June 20, 2024, a solitary complaint under Section 182 IPC—registered as a Police Kalendra—remained pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (JMFC) in Nahan, Himachal Pradesh. The High Court had previously declined to quash this proceeding, reasoning that an offence under Section 182 IPC is an offence against a public servant, which cannot be compromised by private settlements.

The primary legal issue before the Apex Court was whether the magistrate could take cognizance of an offence under Section 182 IPC based on a private complaint or a police report that did not originate from the specific public servant to whom the allegedly false information was provided, or their administrative superior, as mandated by Section 195 of the CrPC.

Strict Compliance With Section 195 CrPC

The Supreme Court clarified that Section 195 of the CrPC serves as a vital safeguard, stipulating that for offences punishable under Sections 172 to 188 of the IPC, no court shall take cognizance unless the complaint is made in writing by the public servant concerned or their administrative superior. In the present case, the court noted that the complaint was not filed by any of the officers in the various government departments where the appellant had allegedly made false statements.

Jurisdictional Lapse in Police Reporting

The bench observed that the Officer-in-charge of the Women Police Station, who had filed the report, was neither the public servant to whom the allegedly false statements were directed nor was that officer administratively superior to those public servants. Consequently, the court held that the procedural mandate of Section 195 was entirely bypassed, rendering the criminal proceedings legally unsustainable regardless of the underlying friction between the parties.

"The complaint is ill-motivated and in any event no cognizance could have been taken based on the report filed by a police officer before whom the second respondent complained of false and frivolous complaints."

The Court further remarked that the initial complaint was a product of the "raging" family disputes and was essentially a tool used to harass the appellant during the height of the matrimonial litigation. Having determined that the proceedings were an abuse of the process of law and lacked the necessary jurisdictional foundation, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed that the proceedings before the JMFC, Nahan, stand quashed in their entirety. The court further ordered that if the appellant had been released on bail, her bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

Date of Decision: 11 August 2026