Cognizance of perjury and false information requires a written complaint by the concerned public servant under Section 195 CrPC.

The Petitioner lodged an FIR in 2003 alleging that two officials demanded a bribe

During the subsequent trial in CTR No. 44 of 2003, the Petitioner was examined as P.W.4 but turned hostile, leading to the acquittal of the accused officials in 2011

Consequently, the Vigilance Department filed a fresh FIR (No. 94 of 2011) against the Petitioner under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption (P.C.) Act and Sections 181 and 182 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly lodging a false case and abetting the accused by resiling from his statement

The Petitioner’s application for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. was rejected by the Special Judge, Vigilance, Sambalpur on 26.07.2025

The Petitioner challenged this rejection via criminal revision

1. Whether a witness who turns hostile during a trial can be prosecuted for abetment under Section 12 of the P.C. Act

2. Whether the Court could take cognizance of offences under Sections 181 and 182 of the IPC based on a police FIR, in view of the bar under Section 195(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C.

Section 12 of the P.C. Act, which punishes the abetment of offences under Sections 7 or 11

Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Cr.P.C., which mandates that cognizance of offences under Sections 172 to 188 of the IPC (including 181 and 182) can only be taken upon a "complaint in writing" by the public servant concerned or their superior

Kamal Kumar Nanda v. State of Orissa (Vig) (2017), establishing that a witness cannot be prosecuted for abetment simply for resiling from a police statement, and that the procedural bar of Section 195 is absolute

Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd v. CBI regarding the limited scope of interference in revision against charge-framing

The Court reasoned that Section 12 of the P.C. Act requires evidence of abetting the commission of a bribe-related offence; merely failing to support the prosecution case as a witness does not constitute abetment

Under Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C., the trial court was prohibited from taking cognizance because the prosecution was initiated via a police FIR rather than a formal written complaint by the public servant to whom the false information was allegedly given

The Inspector who filed the FIR was not the competent "public servant" under the statute

The Court observed that forcing the Petitioner to face trial 23 years after the original incident and 15 years after his testimony would be a travesty of justice given these legal bars

The High Court set aside the order dated 26.07.2025 and discharged the Petitioner from all charges under Section 12 of the P.C. Act and Sections 181 and 182 of the IPC

The Criminal Revision was allowed