Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case When the Judge Signs with the Prosecutor, Justice Is Already Compromised: MP High Court Quashes Tainted Medical College Enquiry Strict Rules Of Evidence Do Not Apply To Proceedings Before The Family Court: Kerala High Court Upholds Wife’s Claim For Gold And Money Commission Workers Cannot Claim Status of Civil Servants: Gujarat High Court Declines Regularization of Physically Challenged Case-Paper Operators Non-Wearing of Helmet Had a Direct Nexus with Fatal Head Injuries  : Madras High Court Upholds 25% Contributory Negligence for Helmet Violation Only a ‘Person Aggrieved’ Can Prosecute Defamation – Political Party Must Be Properly Represented: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Rahul Gandhi

Police cannot register crime under Section 195 A of IPC- Kerala HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court in Kerala has ruled that a police officer cannot register a crime related to an offense under Section 195A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Instead, the procedure under Section 195, read with Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), must be followed. The decision was made by a bench of Justice A. Badharudeen, who was considering an application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. The specific allegation in this case was that the accused had threatened the defacto complainant by posing as a police officer and warning that a separate quotation would be given against him. The police had registered the crime, alleging offenses under Sections 195A of the IPC and Section 120(O) of the Kerala Police Act.

The issue before the bench was whether the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Cr.P.C. applied to offenses under Section 195A of the IPC, which was introduced in 2006. Referring to the case of Radhakrishnan P. v. State of Kerala and Others, the bench found that offenses under Sections 167 and 195A of the IPC were interwoven with and inseparable from the offense under Section 193 and therefore subject to the prohibition under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Cr.P.C.

The High Court noted that Section 195A of the IPC is a cognizable offense under the Criminal Procedure Code, which grants police the power to investigate the case under Section 156 of the Cr.P.C. The bench also highlighted that a police report is not considered a complaint, as defined under Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C.

Therefore, any allegation made orally or in writing to a magistrate with the intention of taking action under the code is considered a complaint, except for a police report.

The High Court held that police cannot register a crime related to an offense under Section 195A of the IPC, and that the procedure under Section 195, read with Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., should be followed. The court observed that all other offenses dealt with under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. are non-cognizable, and therefore, when the threat dealt with in Section 195 of the IPC involves giving false evidence, it is a matter for the court to consider. Consequently, the court ruled that the police's registration of the crime under Section 195A of the IPC was invalid in law.

However, since the police had also registered a crime under Section 120(O) of the Kerala Police Act, the investigation in this regard can proceed.

The petitioner in this case was arrested on December 11, 2022, and was accused of threatening the defacto complainant over the phone with dire consequences since the defacto complainant offered to act as an approver in a case involving an offense under Section 302 of the IPC. The public prosecutor argued that if the petitioner were released on bail, he would repeat the offense and threaten witnesses in court. The High Court, therefore, refused to grant bail to the petitioner.

In conclusion, the High Court held that police officers cannot register a crime related to an offense under Section 195A of the IPC and that the procedure under Section 195, read with Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., must be followed. The court refused to grant bail to the petitioner in this case.

Suni @ Sunil v. State of Kerala 

Latest Legal News