Chapter XIV
Section 195 CrPC: Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence
New Law Update (2024)
Section 193 BNSS, 2023
TRIAL COURT
Punishment
Procedural – Cognizance
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
(1) No Court shall take cognizance—
(a) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or
(i) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or
(ii) 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 by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, 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 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 is 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 as the Civil or Revenue Court (as the case may be) has jurisdiction to hear appeals from the decrees or orders of the first-mentioned Court concerning the subject-matter of the complaint.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 195(1)(a)
This sub-section prohibits any court from taking cognizance of offences against the lawful authority of public servants (e.g., IPC Sections 172-188) unless a formal complaint is filed in writing by the concerned public servant or their administrative superior.
Section 195(1)(b)
This crucial sub-section restricts courts from taking cognizance of offences against public justice, such as perjury (IPC Sections 193-196, 199, 200, 205-211, 228) or document-related offences like forgery (IPC Sections 463, 471, 475, 476) committed in or related to court proceedings, unless the complaint is made by that specific court or an officer authorized by it.
Landmark Judgements
Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (2005):
This landmark Supreme Court judgment clarified that the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC, concerning forgery of documents, applies only when the offence is committed after the document has been produced or given in evidence in a court. If the forgery occurs prior to its production, the restriction on taking cognizance through a private complaint does not apply.
M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana (2000):
The Supreme Court in this case underscored the mandatory nature of the procedure laid down in Section 195 CrPC, particularly for offences like perjury (Section 193 IPC). It held that cognizance for such offences, allegedly committed in a court proceeding, can only be taken upon a written complaint by the concerned court or its authorized officer, thereby upholding the sanctity and authority of judicial proceedings.