Section 195 CrPC bars cognizance of offences during court proceedings absent a written complaint by the concerned court.

The petitioners invoked Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) seeking quashing of FIR No. II-3028 of 2012 dated 16 March 2012, the charge-sheet dated 28 March 2014, and Criminal Case No. 382 of 2014 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Diodar, Banaskantha.

The allegations arose from the petitioners’ alleged deposition, in connivance with each other, during the trial of Criminal Case No. 406 of 2001, which ultimately resulted in acquittal.

The alleged offences included Sections 181, 183, 193, 205 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”).

The petitioners contended that prosecution was barred by Section 195 CrPC because the alleged offences were connected with proceedings before a court.

Whether the FIR, charge-sheet and consequential criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed because cognizance of the alleged offences was barred by Section 195 CrPC in the absence of a written complaint by the concerned court or authorised public servant.

Whether the prosecution could continue for other alleged offences notwithstanding the Section 195 CrPC bar, or whether the allegations constituted, in substance, offences requiring compliance with Section 195 CrPC.

Whether the complainant or successor in office could be permitted to initiate a fresh complaint in accordance with Section 195 CrPC after quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings.

Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Section 195(1)(a)(i) CrPC bars cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 172 to 188 IPC except upon a written complaint by the concerned public servant or superior authority; Section 195(1)(b)(i) similarly bars cognizance of specified offences against public justice, including offences under Section 193 IPC, except upon a written complaint by the concerned court, an authorised court officer, or a superior court.

Section 2(d) CrPC recognises the legally requisite complaint for this purpose.

Relying on Devendra Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1753, the Court applied the principle that courts must examine the substance of the allegations and must not permit severance of related offences merely to circumvent Section 195 CrPC; the relevant tests are whether the additional offences were invoked to evade the statutory bar and whether the facts primarily disclose an offence requiring a complaint by a public servant or court.

The Court found that the allegations concerned the petitioners’ alleged conduct while deposing in a judicial proceeding in Criminal Case No. 406 of 2001.

Since the alleged conduct substantially attracted offences covered by Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC, cognizance could not validly be taken on the basis of a police FIR and charge-sheet alone; a written complaint by the concerned court or an authorised officer was mandatory.

Applying Devendra Kumar, the Court treated the allegations in substance rather than permitting prosecution to proceed on purportedly distinct offences in a manner that would defeat the statutory protection under Section 195 CrPC.

Accordingly, the FIR and charge-sheet could not sustain the pending criminal case, although the investigation papers could be used for a complaint instituted in the manner prescribed by Section 195 CrPC.

FIR No. II-3028 of 2012, the charge-sheet dated 28 March 2014, and Criminal Case No. 382 of 2014 pending before the JMFC, Diodar, were quashed and set aside.

The charge-sheet and investigation papers were permitted to be handed over to the complainant or successor in office for lodging an appropriate complaint in accordance with Section 195 CrPC.

The Court clarified that quashing the FIR would not prejudice any subsequent complaint, which would have to be decided independently and in accordance with law.