Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, foroffences against public justice and for offences relating to documentsgiven in evidence
Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, foroffences against public justice and for offences relating to documentsgiven in evidence. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.(1) No Court shall take cognizance- (a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.(1) No Court shall take cognizance-
(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or
(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence,
except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;
(b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), (namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or
(ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub- clause (i) or sub-clause (ii),
except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.
(2) Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under clause(a) of sub-section (1) any authority to which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court ; and upon its receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint:
Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded.
(3) In clause (b) of sub-section (1), the term "Court" means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of this section.
(4) For the purposes of clause (b) of sub-section (1), a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in the case of a Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such Civil Court in situate:
Provided that-
(a) where appeals lie to more than one Court, the Appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the Court to which such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate;
(b) where appeals lie to a Civil and also to a Revenue Court, such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Civil or Revenue Court according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed.
Section 195, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 215 . Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence Close, with changes 69%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
- s. 172 Diary of proceedings in investigation
- s. 188 Offence committed outside India
- s. 193 Cognizance of offences by Courts of Session
- s. 196 Prosecution for offences against the State and for criminalconspiracy to commit such offence
- s. 463 Non-compliance with provisions of section 164 or section 281
- s. 471 Exclusion of date on which Court is closed
- s. 475 Delivery to commanding officers of persons liable to be tried byCourt-martial
- s. 476 Forms
Referred to by 5
- s. 196 Prosecution for offences against the State and for criminalconspiracy to commit such offence
- s. 308 Trial of person not complying with conditions of pardon
- s. 340 Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195
- s. 341 Appeal
- s. 352 Certain Judges and Magistrates not to try certain offences whencommitted before themselves
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-3.pdf 2005-03-11 DATE VERIFIED. 5-judge Constitution Bench (Lahoti CJI; Mathur J. for the Court). Crl A 402/2005. Skip same-date concurrence/ROP. CrPC 195(1)(b)(ii) bars a private complaint only when the forgery is committed after the document is produced in court (custodia legis). Pre-production forgery is prosecutable on a private complaint. s.340 is the procedure when the bar applies. Map crpc 195 and 340; BNSS 215/379 as successors. Do not pad IPC 193.
On this section: s.195(1)(b)(ii) bars a private complaint for forgery of a document produced in court only when the forgery is committed after production (custodia legis). Pre-production forgery may be privately prosecuted (Iqbal Singh Marwah, 5-judge CB).
-
Babita Lila vs Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 195(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code requires that a complaint for false statements allegedly made in judicial proceedings must be filed by the court concerned or by a court/authority to which that court is 'subordinate' - meaning the authority to which appeals from the proceedings ordinarily and actually lie in the regular course of events. The word 'ordinarily' refers to appellate jurisdiction habitually and regularly exercised, not merely rank hierarchy. When the substantive law (here the Income Tax Act, 1961) clearly designates specific appellate forums and omits to confer appellate jurisdiction on a particular authority, courts cannot supply this legislative gap through judicial interpretation even if that authority is senior in rank, as such omission represents deliberate legislative intent. Therefore, the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation)-I, Bhopal was incompetent to lodge a criminal complaint for false statements made during income tax search proceedings conducted by Income Tax Officers of Nashik and Dhule, as the Deputy Director was not the appellate authority from their decisions; only the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) holds such appellate jurisdiction under the Income Tax Act.
On this section: Core provision restricting who can lodge complaints for offences relating to false statements in court proceedings; requires complaint to be made by the court concerned or courts to which it is subordinate
-
C. P. Subhash vs Insp. of Police Chennai
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a criminal complaint discloses prima facie commission of an offence with specific factual allegations, the High Court's powers to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of Constitution should not be invoked except in rare and compelling circumstances. The High Court cannot interfere with ongoing investigation merely on the ground that allegations may not be sustained on complete evidence, or that related civil proceedings are pending, or that the matter involves document authenticity which will be decided in civil suit. Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. bar on cognizance applies only to offences committed with respect to documents while they are in court custody (custodia legis), not to documents forged before being produced in court. Whether accused actually committed forgery and what offence was committed is exclusively a matter for investigation and trial, not for prejudging by the High Court at investigation stage.
On this section: Bar on cognizance of offences relating to documents. Court held this provision applies only when forgery occurred while document was in court custody (custodia legis), not when forgery predated production in court.
-
C. Muniappan vs State of Tamil Nadu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The ratio decidendi of this judgment is multi-faceted: (1) Charges under Section 188 IPC cannot be framed without written complaint by competent public servant as mandated by Section 195 CrPC, and absence of such complaint renders those charges void ab initio. However, such procedural defect does not vitiate the entire prosecution case or other charges if sufficient evidence exists for those charges. (2) Test identification parade is primarily an investigative tool and corroborative evidence, not substantive evidence. Actual evidence is the court testimony of witnesses. Identification parade is reliable when conducted properly without prior exposure of accused to witnesses, and when witnesses have direct observation opportunity. (3) Evidence of hostile witnesses cannot be rejected in toto; relevant parts consistent with prosecution or defence case can be relied upon after close scrutiny. (4) Defective investigation does not automatically lead to acquittal; court must examine evidence independently of investigation lapses to determine reliability. (5) Death sentence is warranted in rarest of rare cases involving planned, brutal crimes with exceptional depravity targeting helpless victims, where collective conscience is shocked, and no mitigating circumstances exist. Life imprisonment is the rule; death penalty is exception. (6) Two separate FIRs arising from same incident can be clubbed into one charge sheet if they are part of continuous sequence of events.
On this section: Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority - held that written complaint by public servant is mandatory for Section 188 IPC offences
-
Saloni Arora vs State of Nct of Delhi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Prosecution for offences under Section 182 IPC (giving false information to public servant) can only be initiated through strict compliance with Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure, which mandates that the written complaint must be made by the concerned public servant themselves. Any prosecution initiated in violation of this mandatory procedure is void ab initio and all cognizance taken by courts in such cases is without jurisdiction.
On this section: Mandatory procedure prescribing how cases for offences under Section 182 IPC (and similar offences) must be initiated. The Court held that strict compliance with this section is mandatory and any deviation renders prosecution void ab initio.
-
National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms Joint Secretary vs The Bar Council of India Chairman
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a party makes averments in court proceedings on the advice of its counsel, and subsequently tenders an unconditional apology, an application to initiate criminal proceedings under Section 340 CRPC read with Section 195 CRPC should be rejected, provided the court is satisfied that the averments were indeed made on legal advice as evidenced in the court's orders in the main matter.
On this section: Section 195 CRPC requires that prosecution for certain offenses cannot be commenced without sanction from specified authorities. The order cites Section 340 read with Section 195 CRPC, indicating the jurisdictional framework for initiating contempt proceedings.
-
Ethiopian Airlines vs Ganesh Narain Saboo
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Proceedings before Consumer Forums constitute 'suits' within the ordinary and generic meaning of the word, and such proceedings fall within the sweep of special Acts like Carriage by Air Act 1972 and Consumer Protection Act 1986. However, Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding sovereign immunity of foreign states is inapplicable to consumer forum proceedings because: (1) Consumer Protection Act 1986 explicitly enumerates only limited CPC provisions as applicable through Section 13(4), (5), (6), and expressio unius principle excludes all other CPC provisions including Section 86; (2) As a special statute addressing specific subject matter with own procedures coming after general CPC 1908, Consumer Protection Act overrides conflicting CPC provisions; (3) Carriage by Air Act 1972 provides that high contracting parties to Warsaw Convention 1929 are deemed to have submitted to jurisdiction of Indian courts for carriage disputes, and Ethiopia as high contracting party since 1950 is covered by this deeming provision; (4) Participation in international commerce through accession to Warsaw Convention constitutes express waiver of sovereign immunity by foreign states. Consequently, Ethiopian Airlines as a state-owned entity engaged in commercial carriage activities cannot claim sovereign immunity against consumer protection proceedings and no Central Government consent is required for consumer to pursue complaint in Indian consumer forums.
On this section: Section 13(5) of Consumer Protection Act deems consumer forum to be civil court for purposes of these provisions
-
Sasikala Pushpa vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A clerical error or incorrect statement regarding date and place in a procedural document like a vakalatnama, where the party admits to the genuine signatures and provides a plausible explanation for the error, does not constitute forgery or fraud upon the court warranting criminal prosecution under Sections 193, 466, 468, and 471 IPC. Fraud requires mens rea (criminal intention) to deceive and cause wrongful gain or loss. Before exercising jurisdiction under Section 340 Cr.P.C. to direct a criminal complaint, the court must be satisfied that it is 'expedient in the interest of justice' by weighing the effect on administration of justice, not merely the injury to a person. A mere incorrect statement in a procedural document that has no bearing on the merits of the case and causes no demonstrable harm to the administration of justice does not justify criminal prosecution.
On this section: Offences against public justice; basis for court-initiated complaint under Section 340
-
Corporation Bank vs Masood Ahmed Khan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A quasi-judicial authority vested with substantial judicial powers (such as the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) cannot dismiss appeals or revision petitions by merely affirming lower court orders without providing reasoned explanations for its decision. Every quasi-judicial forum exercising powers akin to a civil court must record detailed, rational, and substantive reasons for its conclusions, showing the nexus between facts/materials considered and the legal conclusions reached. Mere affirmation or cryptic orders are violations of natural justice and administrative law principles. Additionally, when a party files a separate appeal before a multi-party forum, that party has the right to independent hearing and consideration; dismissing the appeal without independent analysis violates the right to fair hearing. The requirement to record reasons is mandatory and is as fundamental to quasi-judicial decision-making as observing principles of natural justice.
On this section: Commission treated as Civil Court for criminal proceedings purposes
-
Shri Kailash Vijayvargiya vs Antar Singh Darbar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The mere fact that a person has made a contradictory statement in a judicial proceeding is not by itself always sufficient to justify a prosecution under Sections 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code. It must be shown that the defendant has intentionally given a false statement at any stage of the judicial proceedings or fabricated false evidence for the purpose of using the same at any stage of the judicial proceedings. Even after such position has emerged, the court has to form an opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice to initiate an inquiry into the offences of false evidence and offences against public justice as referred in Section 340(1) of the CrPC, having regard to the overall factual matrix as well as the probable consequences of such a prosecution. The court must be satisfied that such an inquiry is required in the interests of justice and appropriate in the facts of the case.
On this section: Cognizance of offences relating to elections. Referenced in context of brief inquiry requirement in election petitions.
-
Shri Kailash Vijayvargiya vs Antar Singh Darbar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Mere allegations of contradictory statements, factual errors in description of parties, or absence from notary signing procedures do not constitute sufficient grounds for initiating a preliminary inquiry under Section 340 CrPC into alleged false evidence and perjury. A court must form a definite opinion that the inquiry is expedient in the interests of justice, taking into account the overall factual matrix, the probable consequences of prosecution, and the requirement that the defendant must have intentionally given a false statement or deliberately fabricated evidence. The absence of such satisfaction renders the direction to initiate inquiry invalid and requires remand for fresh consideration.
On this section: High Court relied on Section 195 CrPC for ordering brief inquiry into alleged forged affidavit - Supreme Court found this insufficient without proper Section 340 satisfaction
-
Udai Singh vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
For prosecution of a public servant (police officer) for offences under Sections 193, 195, and 196 IPC (relating to false evidence in judicial proceedings), a written complaint from the court in relation to which the offences were committed is mandatory under Section 195 Cr.P.C. Additionally, for prosecution under Sections 166 and 167 IPC for acts allegedly committed in discharge of official duty, prosecution sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. from the competent authority is necessary. Absence of these procedural requirements renders the prosecution invalid and liable to be set aside.
On this section: Procedure for prosecution of offences under Sections 193, 195, 196 IPC. Court held that prosecution can only proceed upon written complaint by the court in relation to which offences were committed.
-
Om Parkash Bali vs State Th. I/c Crime Branch
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cross-criminal cases involving the same subject matter, both cases can proceed simultaneously before the same court. The pendency of one case does not prevent framing of charges or proceeding in the other case. An accused cannot rely on Section 476 CrPC or Section 195 CrPC to prevent prosecution for forgery merely because the same cheque has been tendered as evidence in a parallel complaint filed by the accused. Trial courts must not order calling of record of cases without stating reasons and legal provisions, as such orders suffer from non-application of mind and can be quashed by the High Court.
On this section: Requirement of private complaint for certain offences. Petitioner argued that forgery prosecution can only be launched under this section after conclusion of Section 138 complaint. Court rejected this argument.
-
Ashok Kumar Mittal vs Sat Kamal Pathak
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a complaint for perjury and false prosecution is filed after a malicious FIR has been quashed by the High Court, the limitation period for such complaint should be computed from the date of quashing of the FIR, not from the date of its registration. The cause of action arises when the false allegations are judicially determined to be baseless. Additionally, when multiple offences are charged together, the limitation period is determined with reference to the offence punishable with the most severe punishment, and the trial court must consider the substantive merits of the complaint before dismissing it on limitation grounds alone.
On this section: Cognizance of offence under Section 211 IPC can only be taken on complaint of Court or such officer of Court authorized in this behalf. Court held that no such complaint was filed in the present case.
-
Miryala Phanindra vs State of Telangana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Mere presence of an accused at the scene of a crime, without specific evidence of participation, possession of contraband, or role attribution by the investigating agency, does not constitute criminal liability under NDPS Act, Excise Act, Disaster Management Act, Epidemic Disease Act, or IPC. The investigating agency must specify the exact role played by each accused and provide concrete evidence (such as recovery of prohibited substance from the accused's possession or evidence of consumption) to justify prosecution. Absence of such specific evidence is fatal to the prosecution.
On this section: Court is prohibited from taking cognizance of offence punishable under Section 188 IPC unless filed by the concerned public servant; applied to hold that mere presence without specific role cannot attract Section 188 IPC prosecution
-
Phool Chand Bhaskar vs State of Rajasthan through Pp
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 195 CrPC bar on cognizance does not apply to offences under Section 173 IPC. Section 173 IPC is a general provision applicable to all persons, including police officials, who intentionally prevent service of summons or other legal proceedings. A court can take cognizance of Section 173 IPC offences without requiring a written complaint from a public servant. The trial court properly took cognizance based on the process server's report showing that the petitioner avoided service of bailable warrants.
On this section: Provision creating a bar on cognizance of certain offences (like contempt of lawful authority) unless there is a written complaint by the public servant concerned. Court held that this bar does not apply to Section 173 IPC offences.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… The Registrar, Vigilance of this court is directed to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the offences referred to in clause (b) of sub section (1) of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if any committed, or in relation to this proceedings and submit a report as provided for under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The proceedings would be deemed to be pending for the limited purpose of further action under Section 340 of the Code. Sd/- P.B.SURESH …
Questions about Section 195
What have the courts held on Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (11 Mar 2005) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.195(1)(b)(ii) bars a private complaint for forgery of a document produced in court only when the forgery is committed after production (custodia legis). Pre-production forgery may be privately prosecuted (Iqbal Singh Marwah, 5-judge CB). Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 11 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2005 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CRPC 195, section 195 CRPC, section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (11 Mar 2005).
What should I read with Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 172 (Diary of proceedings in investigation), section 188 (Offence committed outside India), section 193 (Cognizance of offences by Courts of Session), section 196 (Prosecution for offences against the State and for criminalconspiracy to commit such offence), and on 4 further provisions, so none of them can safely be read on its own. 5 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 215 (. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 195, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.