NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has ruled that threatening a witness is a cognisable offence, and the police can directly register an FIR and investigate such an incident without waiting for a formal complaint from a court.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe said, an offence under Section 195-A IPC was a cognizable offence and pertained to inducing a person to give false evidence by intimidating him or her with threat of injury either to his or her person or reputation or property or to the person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested.
The bench pointed out, "Section 195-A (Offence of threatening witnesses) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was conceptualized as an offence distinct and different from those under Sections 193, 194, 195 and 196 IPC."
The court set aside the Kerala High Court's decision which held that an FIR for offence pertaining to threating a witness under Section 195-A of the IPC cannot be registered by the police.
Disagreeing with the view, the court said this section was deliberately conceptualised as a distinct offence with a different procedural pathway and being a cognisable offence, the police is empowered to directly register FIR based on threatened witness statements.
The court stressed that requiring a threatened witness to first approach the court for a complaint would be an impractical hurdle.
"Requiring that person to go before the court concerned... and inform it about that threat thereby necessitating a complaint under Section 195(1)(b)(i) along with an inquiry under Section 340 CrPC would only cripple and hamper the process," the bench said.
The court pointed out the undeniable fact remained that the offence under Section 195-A IPC is a cognisable offence.
"Once that is so the power of the police to take action in relation thereto under Sections 154 CrPC and 156 CrPC cannot be doubted," the court said.
The court's judgment arose out of the decision by the Kerala and Karnataka High Courts. It declared the view taken by both the High Courts as erroneous and unsustainable in law.
In the case filed by Kerala, the High Court granted bail to the accused, holding that the police were not authorised to register an FIR for offence under Section 195A IPC, and only court was empowered to register complaint against the said offence.
The apex court allowed the appeal filed by the Kerala government.
Second matter was related to 2016 killing of BJP worker Yogesh Goudar involving former Minister and Congress Vinay Kulkarni as accused. The court allowed an appeal filed by the CBI and set aside the Karnataka High Court's orders quashing taking of cognisance of the offence against the accused for threatening witnesses.
Disclaimer: This content is produced and published by LawStreet Journal Media for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The views expressed are independent of any legal practice of the individuals involved.
