Section 195A IPC Is Not Controlled by Section 195 CrPC: No Requirement of Court Complaint for Threatening a Witness: Supreme Court Clarifies Statutory Interpretation

Section 195A IPC is a cognizable offence and not subject to Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC - The case arose from contradictory decisions rendered by different High Courts on whether prosecution under Section 195A IPC requires a complaint by the court concerned. The Kerala and Karnataka High Courts had held that the offence falls within Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC, thereby mandating court complaints before any cognizance or investigation. Conversely, High Courts of Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, and Calcutta had ruled that Section 195A IPC is standalone and cognizable, allowing police to act directly under CrPC.

The appeals before the Supreme Court—filed by the State of Kerala and the CBI—challenged this restrictive approach, particularly the Kerala High Court’s decision to grant bail on the ground that the FIR under Section 195A IPC was invalid for want of court complaint.

No Casus Omissus – Legislative Scheme Must Be Given Full Effect

In rejecting the respondent’s contention that the legislature “forgot” to include Section 195A IPC under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC, the Court applied the doctrine of casus omissus, stating that courts cannot fill legislative gaps where none exist:

“It is not permissible for the Court to apply the doctrine of casus omissus where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous… It is not the function of the Court to add words or expressions merely to suit what the Court thinks is the intent of the legislature,” the Court observed, citing S.R. Bommai v. Union of India and Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta.

The judgment emphasized that the legislature, while enacting Section 195A IPC in 2006, had already amended Section 195(1) CrPC at the same time, but chose not to include Section 195A IPC among the list of offences requiring court complaints.

“There are ample means to gather the clear intention of the lawmakers... The statutory provisions, which are seemingly lacking in clarity but are actually not so, can be synchronized so as to give effect to the legislation as intended, without the Court venturing into the realm of legislative drafting.”

Harmonious Construction – Section 195A IPC and CrPC Provisions Must Be Reconciled

The Court adopted the principle of harmonious construction to interpret the statutory scheme, holding that Section 195A IPC is intended to function independently of Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC and must be read with Section 195A CrPC, which allows any person—not just the court—to file a complaint.

“The threat to a witness may be given long before he comes to court… Requiring a complaint from the court in every such instance would only cripple and hamper the process.”

“This offence was made cognizable so that the threatened witness or other person may take immediate steps either by informing the police under Section 154 CrPC or by making a complaint to the Magistrate under Section 195A CrPC.”

Two Classes of Offence Under Section 195A IPC? Not Permissible

The Court firmly rejected the suggestion that Section 195A IPC be split into two categories—one requiring a court complaint if the threat relates to a judicial proceeding, and the other permitting police action if it occurs outside court.

“We find no merit in this argument as it practically requires us to rewrite the provision contrary to how it actually reads.”

This, the Court held, would create an artificial and impermissible classification of the same offence, which is neither supported by statutory text nor necessary for achieving legislative objectives.

Impact of the Judgment: FIRs Restored, Bail Cancelled, Prosecutions Reinstated

As a direct consequence of this ruling:

• The bail granted to accused Suni @ Sunil by the Kerala High Court was set aside, and he was directed to surrender before the trial court within two weeks.

• The cognizance order passed by the Magistrate in Karnataka was restored, as was the dismissal of a discharge application by the trial court.

• The Supreme Court expressly overruled the restrictive interpretation adopted by the Gauhati, Kerala, and Karnataka High Courts, and upheld the Delhi, MP, and Calcutta High Courts’ view that police can act directly under Section 195A IPC.

Supreme Court Ensures Swift Legal Remedy Against Witness Intimidation

This authoritative interpretation by the Supreme Court settles a contentious procedural issue and reaffirms the constitutional goal of protecting witnesses and upholding public justice. By allowing police to act immediately against threats to witnesses, the Court has ensured that Section 195A IPC serves its intended purpose—to deter and punish coercion aimed at manipulating the justice system.

“Section 195A IPC is a cognizable offence. The process of criminal law can be set in motion by giving information to the police under Section 154 CrPC. The power of the police under Sections 154 and 156 CrPC remains untrammeled.”

This ruling now stands as a binding precedent for trial courts and law enforcement, enabling them to respond decisively against any attempt to undermine the credibility and safety of witnesses through threats and coercion.

Date of Decision: October 28, 2025