Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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