Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a private complaint filed by the appellant, Narendra Kumar Srivastava, against respondent nos. 2 to 4, officials of Doordarshan and All India Radio, alleging commission of an offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for giving false evidence in a contempt proceeding before the Patna High Court. The appellant had earlier filed a contempt petition (MJC No. 2912 of 2015) alleging non-compliance of a High Court order directing consideration of his representation for grant of Assured Career Progression (ACP). The respondents filed a show-cause affidavit, and the High Court dropped the contempt case. Instead of challenging the compliance order, the appellant filed a private complaint before the Assistant Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Motihari, alleging that the respondents made false statements in the affidavit, thereby committing an offence under Section 193 IPC. The Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the respondents. The respondents challenged this order before the Patna High Court in Criminal Revision No. 111 of 2017, which was allowed, setting aside the Magistrate's order. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court framed the issue whether the Magistrate could take cognizance of an offence under Section 193 IPC on a private complaint. The Court examined Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which bars a court from taking cognizance of offences under Sections 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 211, and 228 IPC when committed in or in relation to any proceeding in any court, except on a complaint in writing of that court or an authorized officer. The Court noted that the alleged false evidence was given in a judicial proceeding (the contempt case before the High Court). Therefore, the Magistrate could not take cognizance on a private complaint; only the High Court could make a complaint. The Court distinguished between Section 195(1)(b)(i) (offences of false evidence) and Section 195(1)(b)(ii) (offences relating to documents), holding that the former requires a court complaint. The Court also considered the appellant's reliance on Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar, (1998) 2 SCC 493, but found it inapplicable as that case dealt with offences relating to forged documents under clause (ii). The Court upheld the High Court's order quashing the Magistrate's cognizance order and dismissed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Cognizance of Offence - Section 195 CrPC - Bar on Private Complaint - The court held that Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC bars taking cognizance of an offence under Section 193 IPC except on a complaint in writing of the court concerned. Since the alleged false evidence was given in a judicial proceeding (contempt case), the Magistrate could not take cognizance on a private complaint. (Paras 11-15) B) Indian Penal Code - False Evidence - Section 193 IPC - Requirement of Court Complaint - The offence of giving false evidence in a judicial proceeding under Section 193 IPC falls under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC, requiring a complaint by the court. The appellant's private complaint was not maintainable. (Paras 10-15) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Distinction Between Offences - Section 195(1)(b)(i) and (ii) CrPC - The court distinguished between offences of false evidence (clause (i)) and offences relating to documents (clause (ii)), noting that the former requires a court complaint, while the latter may be initiated on a private complaint if the document is forged. (Paras 12-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 193 of the IPC on the basis of a private complaint?
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's order quashing the Magistrate's cognizance. The Court held that the Magistrate could not take cognizance of an offence under Section 193 IPC on a private complaint as the alleged false evidence was given in a judicial proceeding (contempt case before the High Court), and only the High Court could file a complaint under Section 195 CrPC.
Law Points
- Section 195 CrPC bars cognizance of offence under Section 193 IPC on private complaint
- complaint must be by the court concerned
- distinction between Section 195(1)(b)(i) and (ii) CrPC
