AI Overview...

Understanding Sections 195 and 340 of CrPC: A Comprehensive Guide

In the realm of criminal procedure in India, Sections 195 and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 play pivotal roles in regulating prosecutions for offences that impact the administration of justice. These provisions ensure that courts act as gatekeepers, preventing misuse of the legal process while protecting the integrity of judicial proceedings. Whether it's allegations of forgery, perjury, or other offences involving documents produced in court, understanding these sections is crucial for litigants, lawyers, and even judges.

This blog post breaks down the provisions of Section 195 and 340 CrPC, drawing from key judicial interpretations. Note that this is general information based on case law and statutes; legal situations vary, and you should consult a qualified lawyer for advice specific to your case.

What is Section 195 CrPC?

Section 195 CrPC deals with the prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, offences against public justice, and offences relating to documents given in evidence. It imposes a bar on courts taking cognizance of certain offences unless a complaint is filed by a specified authority, typically the court itself.

Key Provisions of Section 195(1)(b)

• Clause (b)(i): Covers offences under Sections 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 211, and 228 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) when committed in relation to a proceeding in any court.


• Clause (b)(ii): Applies to offences under Sections 463 to 471, 475, and 476 IPC (forgery-related) 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 Lalita Kumari VS Govt. of U. P. - 2013 8 Supreme 1.

The Supreme Court has clarified that the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) applies only when the offence is committed after the document is produced or given in evidence in court Iqbal Singh Marwah VS Meenakshi Marwah - 2005 2 Supreme 549. Forgery committed prior to production does not attract this bar, preventing misuse where someone forges a document and then files it to shield themselves Iqbal Singh Marwah VS Meenakshi Marwah - 2005 2 Supreme 549.

The expression 'when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in a Court' occurring in clause (b)(ii) should normally mean commission of such an offence after the document has actually been produced or given in evidence in the Court. Iqbal Singh Marwah VS Meenakshi Marwah - 2005 2 Supreme 549

This interpretation protects society from prolonged delays in prosecution, as an enlarged view could allow forgers to initiate frivolous proceedings just to invoke the bar Iqbal Singh Marwah VS Meenakshi Marwah - 2005 2 Supreme 549.

Section 340 CrPC: The Procedure

Section 340 CrPC outlines the procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195. It empowers courts to initiate action when offences affecting justice occur during proceedings before them. The court must form an opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice to inquire into the offence.

Steps Under Section 340

1. Preliminary Inquiry: The court may hold a preliminary inquiry to ascertain if a prima facie case exists. This is not to verify veracity but to check if a cognizable offence is disclosed. It should be time-bound, not exceeding 7 days, with reasons noted in the General Diary if delayed Lalita Kumari VS Govt. of U. P. - 2013 8 Supreme 1.


2. Satisfaction of Court: The court must record that a deliberate falsehood occurred and there's a reasonable probability of conviction Puttan @ Shivpal Singh VS State of U. P.. Mere inaccuracies or contradictions do not suffice; mens rea (guilty intent) must be evident Mubashir Ali VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2024 Supreme(All) 1598.


3. Opportunity to be Heard: Parties should get a chance to respond before proceedings Puttan @ Shivpal Singh VS State of U. P..


4. Filing Complaint: If satisfied, the court files a written complaint to the Magistrate, who treats it as an FIR Iqbal Singh Marwah VS Meenakshi Marwah - 2005 2 Supreme 549.

The procedure for filing a complaint by the Court as contemplated by Section 195(1) Cr.P.C. is given in Section 340 Cr.P.C. Iqbal Singh Marwah VS Meenakshi Marwah - 2005 2 Supreme 549

Courts exercise discretion judiciously. Not every acquittal triggers Section 340; acquittal on benefit of doubt doesn't imply complainant perjury Sarvjeet Singh vs State (NCT of Delhi).

Interrelation Between Sections 195 and 340

Section 340 is supplementary to Section 195, providing the mechanism for complaints S. H. TARALAGATTI VS DIRECTOR GENERAL, ALL INDIA RADIO, NEW DELHI - 1993 Supreme(Kar) 68. Key rulings emphasize:
- Locus Standi: Any party or even a stranger can apply, but the court decides P. Murugesan VS B. Gokila - 2013 Supreme(Mad) 1362.
- Jurisdiction: Cognizance must be by the court where the offence occurred or a superior court Garima Shaw @ Guddi Shaw vs Umesh Kumar Shaw - 2025 Supreme(Cal) 198. Family courts qualify as 'courts' under these sections Tilendra Sahu S/o Shri Manohar Sahu VS Roshini Sahu W/o Tilendra Sahu - 2022 Supreme(Chh) 466.
- No Automatic Action: Preliminary inquiry isn't always mandatory if material suffices; no hearing needed pre-opinion in some cases Jarnial Singh VS State of Haryana - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 1864.

In NCLT/NCLAT contexts, tribunals are deemed 'civil courts' for Section 195/340, allowing contempt proceedings Anil Kumar Ojha vs CS C Ramasubramaniam - 2024 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 1152.

Landmark Cases and Interpretations

• FIR Registration vs. These Sections: While Section 154 CrPC mandates FIRs for cognizable offences, Sections 195/340 override for specified offences Lalita Kumari VS Govt. of U. P. - 2013 8 Supreme 1.


• Perjury (IPC 193): Requires proof of deliberate falsehood; victim's contradictory statements may not warrant action if no intent proven State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station City Kotwali VS Vinod Chouhan S/o. Ramlal Chouhan - 2023 Supreme(Chh) 597.


• Forgery Cases: Pre-production forgery allows direct FIR; post-production needs court complaint Ram Gopal VS State Of U. P. - 2011 Supreme(All) 645, Rajendra Sahay VS State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary - 2016 Supreme(Pat) 1235.


• Abuse of Process: Magistrates can't take cognizance without court complaint, leading to quashing Balabhadra Mahanta & Mamata Das VS State Of Orissa - 2019 Supreme(Ori) 521, Ram Kishore VS State of Rajasthan - 2004 Supreme(Raj) 510.

| Scenario | Applies Section 195/340? | Action |
|----------|--------------------------|--------|
| Forgery before court production | No | Direct FIR possible |
| Forgery after production | Yes | Court complaint under 340 |
| Mere contradiction in testimony | Usually No | Discretionary |
| Clear perjury impacting justice | Yes | Preliminary inquiry |

Practical Implications for Litigants

• For Complainants: If suspecting forgery/perjury, apply under Section 340 to the concerned court. Provide evidence of impact on justice.


• For Accused: Challenge premature cognizance; highlight lack of inquiry.


• Court's Role: Balance rights; avoid frivolous prosecutions that clog courts HRIDAYANGSHU BHATTACHARJEE VS STATE OF JHARKHAND - 2002 Supreme(Jhk) 763.

During pending proceedings (e.g., maintenance under Section 125), Section 340 applications are often rejected until conclusion Tilendra Sahu S/o Shri Manohar Sahu VS Roshini Sahu W/o Tilendra Sahu - 2022 Supreme(Chh) 466.

Key Takeaways

• Sections 195 and 340 CrPC safeguard judicial integrity by mandating court-led complaints for specific offences.


• Focus on post-production offences; pre-production forgery escapes the bar.


• Preliminary inquiries ensure fairness, but courts have wide discretion.


• Always prioritize interest of justice; misuse can lead to quashing under Section 482.

These provisions deter false evidence and protect honest litigants. For tailored advice, consult a legal expert.

Disclaimer: This post provides general insights based on judicial precedents and is not legal advice. Laws evolve, and outcomes depend on facts.

Lalita Kumari VS Govt. of U. P. - 2013 8 Supreme 1 Iqbal Singh Marwah VS Meenakshi Marwah - 2005 2 Supreme 549 His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadgalvaru VS State of Kerala - 1973 Supreme(SC) 163 P. Murugesan VS B. Gokila - 2013 Supreme(Mad) 1362 Rajendra Sahay VS State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary - 2016 Supreme(Pat) 1235 Balabhadra Mahanta & Mamata Das VS State Of Orissa - 2019 Supreme(Ori) 521 Vinay Kumar VS State of H. P. - 2009 Supreme(HP) 1228 S. H. TARALAGATTI VS DIRECTOR GENERAL, ALL INDIA RADIO, NEW DELHI - 1993 Supreme(Kar) 68 Ram Kishore VS State of Rajasthan - 2004 Supreme(Raj) 510 HRIDAYANGSHU BHATTACHARJEE VS STATE OF JHARKHAND - 2002 Supreme(Jhk) 763 Ram Gopal VS State Of U. P. - 2011 Supreme(All) 645 Puttan @ Shivpal Singh VS State of U. P. Sohan Kumar Das @ Chhote S/o Duni Lal Das VS The State of Bihar - 2023 Supreme(Pat) 29 Anil Kumar Ojha vs CS C Ramasubramaniam - 2024 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 1152 Mubashir Ali VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2024 Supreme(All) 1598 Sarvjeet Singh vs State (NCT of Delhi) Jarnial Singh VS State of Haryana - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 1864 Garima Shaw @ Guddi Shaw vs Umesh Kumar Shaw - 2025 Supreme(Cal) 198 Tilendra Sahu S/o Shri Manohar Sahu VS Roshini Sahu W/o Tilendra Sahu - 2022 Supreme(Chh) 466 Garima Shaw Alias Guddi Shaw v. Umesh Kumar Shaw - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 4766 Bharatendu Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. - 2025 Supreme(All) 2760 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station City Kotwali VS Vinod Chouhan S/o. Ramlal Chouhan - 2023 Supreme(Chh) 597 Sukhraj VS State of U. P. - 2021 Supreme(All) 86