Prosecution for Contempt of Lawful Authority of Public Servants, Offences against Public Justice & for Offences related to Documents in Evidence- CRPC 195
Date : 30 Mar, 2022
Post By Vishal Kumar
Section 195 Criminal Procedure Code Section 195- Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. (1) No Court shall take cognizance- (a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), or (ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate; (b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or (ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub- clause (i) or sub- clause (ii), except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. (2) Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under clause (a) of sub- section (1) any authority to which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court; and upon its receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint: Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded. (3) In clause (b) of sub- section (1), the term" Court" means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of this section. (4) For the purposes of clause (b) of sub- section (1), a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in the case of a Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such Civil Court in situate: Provided that- (a) where appeals lie to more than one Court, the Appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the Court to which such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate; (b) where appeals lie to a Civil and also to a Revenue Court, such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Civil or Revenue Court according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed. INTRODUCTION The basic rule of law is that if a person has knowledge of some crime, then that person can file a complaint against that offence and set the criminal law in motion. It is not important that the person who is complaining is the victim of that particular offence. Any person who has knowledge of the commission of an offence can file a complaint about the same. However, section 195 to section 199 specifies when a complaint cannot be registered. It lays down the exceptions to the general rule of criminal law.
IMPORTANT FACTORS OF SECTION 195 Under section 190, it was specified that a magistrate can take cognizance of a matter in 3 ways namely- via a private complaint, via a police report, via a Suo moto action of the magistrate himself. Now when talking about section 195, before a magistrate can take cognizance of any offence, he has to make sure that the taking of cognizance by the magistrate of that particular offence is not barred under section 195. It is the magistrate’s duty to make sure that he doesn’t take cognizance of any offence which is barred under section 195. Section 195 specifies certain offences for which the magistrate cannot take direct cognizance. Offences under section 195 can be divided into 3 categories- the first category of offences includes offences committed against a public servant. Offences committed under section 172 to section 188 of IPC are offences that can be categorised as committed against a public servant. Complaints related to offences under these sections cannot be taken up by the magistrates directly unless the procedure is followed under section 195. So, under section 195, if a public servant is a victim of any offence, then it is only him that can make a complaint under section 195. A private person cannot make a complaint under this section. 195(2) states that if a complaint has been filed by a public servant under this section, it can be withdrawn by the order of the public servant’s superior. For example, if A is a public servant who has filed a complaint under section 195 and B is the superior officer of A, then on B’s orders, A will have to withdraw his complaint and the court will not proceed with the complaint in that instance. However, the proviso to this subsection states that in cases where the trial on the complaint filed has been concluded, the complaint cannot be withdrawn. Another important point to understand here is that in cases where an offence has been committed under sections 193-196, 199, 205-211, 228 of IPC against the court such as lying under oath, etc., cognizance of such matters cannot be taken unless the court which is the victim does not file a complaint against the offence. CONFLICT BETWEEN SECTION 188 OF IPC AND 195 OF CrPC As mentioned above, any offence committed under sections 172-188 can only be resolved in the court of law when the public officer against whom such offence is committed files a written complaint of the same. Section 188 provides for offences committed against a public official. The offence mentioned under section 188 is cognizable and bailable. Now, the usual procedure is that once the offence under section 188 is committed, the police can arrest the accused without a warrant and can file FIR against the accused. After that, the police can carry on an investigation and submit a final report after which the court takes the matter and starts the trial. However, section 195 of CrPC mentions that a court cannot take cognizance of an offence mentioned under section 188 of IPC unless the public servant himself comes with a written complaint. Also, it is mentioned that a complaint filed by the public officer and a police report are not the same things under section 2(d) CrPC. Hence, the procedure followed by police is redundant and is of futile nature as long as section 195 stands. This was also stated by the court in the case of Jeevanandham vs. State. RESOLVING THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE SECTIONS One way to solve this problem is that once an offence has been committed under section 188 of IPC, the public servant should be allowed to file both a written complaint to the court and an FIR to the police. Once the court takes cognizance under section 195, the police can then show the FIR and the preliminary investigation that it might have conducted in furtherance of the FIR filed. In this way, the conflict will get resolved and both the procedures will be harmonised. IMPORTANT CASE LAWS 1. Bhima Razu Prasad vs. State- In this case, a case was registered under person A under different sections of IPC with regards to the currency which was seized at the A’s house. However, during the investigation, A colluded with B and C and prepared false evidence to justify a large amount of currency that was found in A’s house. The issues that came before the court were that – • Whether the investigation agency is barred from filing a complaint under section 195(1)(b)(i) against person A who produced false evidence at the stage of the investigation. • Whether such production of evidence at the investigation stage when produced by a person who is not a party to the case is an offence under section 195(1)(b)(i) with regards to the phrase ‘in relation to’. The Supreme Court held that- The court can take cognizance of fabricating evidence even before it comes as evidence in court only when the evidence has been fabricated and presented by someone who is a party to the subsequent court proceedings. It can also be considered from a person who is not a party to the proceedings but only when the person is capable of becoming a party to the proceedings in the coming future. This has to be done with a view to defrauding the court. However, if the person has defrauded the investigation agency with a view to mislead them, that might not have any direct connection or nexus to the proceeding in court. So, the words ‘in relation to' mean that if the evidence that is fabricated during the investigation process has any reasonable nexus with the court proceedings. 2. Nand Kumar Verma vs. the State of Chhattisgarh- In this case, the court stated that no private complaint is tenable for an offence of conspiracy or forging of documents done before the court. FIR based on such crimes cannot be registered via a private complaint under section 195. CONCLUSION We have looked at the bars provided under section 195. These bars are enforced by the law to make sure that no person can file a complaint against another person in a private capacity for a wrong that is not of a private nature. This is based on the fact that people may file vexatious petitions in order to harass the individual. In order to avoid this, the law has put a bar and has enabled the aggrieved i.e., public servants and the court to have an exclusive right of filing a complaint if an offence has been committed against them. Looking for a Lawyer ? Lawtendo is a platform for you to help in hiring legal counsel. We work twenty-four hours to provide the best lawyers who suit the needs of the customers. We work with a wide range of lawyers whose areas of expertise range from divorce, court marriage, and registration, property possession delay, cheque, and money recovery; to will drafting and agreement, employment issues, and builder disputes. In addition to this, we also deal with cases of wrongful dishonour of cheques. Lawtendo is a hassle-free platform that works rigorously to make sure the best lawyer reaches their client in time. Written by- Tarushi Goel, a fifth year law student of O.P Jindal Global University. She is currently pursuing BA LLB and is inclined towards legal research.
