2019 (2) TMI 1892 - SC - Indian Laws

Contempt petition - 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? - HELD THAT - The offences under Section 195(1)(b)(i) and Section 195(1)(b)(ii) are clearly distinct. The first category of offences refers to offences of false evidence and offences against public justice, whereas, the second category of offences relates to offences in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court. Section 340 of Cr.P.C. makes it clear that a prosecution under this Section can be initiated only by the sanction of the court under whose proceedings an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b) has allegedly been committed. The object of this Section is to ascertain whether any offence affecting administration of justice has been committed in relation to any document produced or given in evidence in court during the time when the document or evidence was in custodia legis and whether it is also expedient in the interest of justice to take such action. The court shall not only consider prima facie case but also see whether it is in or against public interest to allow a criminal proceeding to be instituted - clauses under Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. i.e. sub-section 195(1)(b)(i) and sub section 195(1)(b)(ii) cater to separate offences. Though Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. is a generic section for offences committed under Section 195(1)(b), the same has different and exclusive application to clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. The case in hand squarely falls within the category of cases falling under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Cr.P.C. as the offence is punishable under Section 193 of the IPC. Therefore, the Magistrate has erred in taking cognizance of the offence on the basis of a private complaint - Thus, High Court has rightly set aside the order of the Magistrate. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Magistrate's cognizance of an offence under Section 193 IPC based on a private complaint.
2. Applicability of Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. in barring such cognizance.
3. Interpretation and application of Sections 193 IPC and 195 Cr.P.C. in judicial proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Magistrate's Cognizance of an Offence under Section 193 IPC Based on a Private Complaint:
The appellant filed a private complaint against respondents alleging that they made false statements in their show-cause affidavit, leading to the High Court dropping a contempt case. The Assistant Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 193 IPC and summoned the respondents. However, the respondents challenged this order before the High Court, which quashed the Magistrate's order. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance based on a private complaint.

2. Applicability of Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. in Barring Such Cognizance:
The respondents argued that Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. bars the court from taking cognizance of offences under Section 193 IPC unless there is a complaint in writing from the court where the alleged offence was committed. The appellant contended that prior sanction was not mandatory for filing a private complaint under Section 193 IPC. The Supreme Court examined Section 195 Cr.P.C., which mandates that for offences under Sections 193 to 196 IPC, cognizance can only be taken on a complaint from the concerned court. The Court reaffirmed that the provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. are mandatory, and private complaints are barred for offences under Section 193 IPC.

3. Interpretation and Application of Sections 193 IPC and 195 Cr.P.C. in Judicial Proceedings:
The Court reviewed the relevant sections, including Section 193 IPC, which prescribes punishment for giving false evidence in judicial proceedings, and Section 195 Cr.P.C., which outlines the procedure for taking cognizance of such offences. The Court referred to previous judgments, including M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana, which emphasized that private prosecutions for offences under Section 193 IPC are barred and that the procedure under Section 195 Cr.P.C. is mandatory. The Court also discussed Section 340 Cr.P.C., which prescribes the procedure for courts to initiate prosecution for offences affecting the administration of justice. The Court concluded that the Magistrate erred in taking cognizance based on a private complaint, as the case fell under the purview of Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C., which requires a complaint from the concerned court.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to set aside the Magistrate's order taking cognizance of the offence under Section 193 IPC based on a private complaint. The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 195 Cr.P.C., which bars private complaints for offences under Section 193 IPC. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with the costs imposed by the High Court being set aside.