Legal Review and Analysis of State of Kerala vs Sunil @ Sunil & Connected Matters 2025 INSC 1260

1. Heading of the Judgment

Case Name: State of Kerala vs. Sunil @ Sunil & Connected Matters
Citation: 2025 INSC 1260
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe
Date: October 28, 2025

2. Related Laws and Sections

The judgment primarily interprets and harmonizes the following legal provisions:

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):
  Section 195A: Threatening any person to give false evidence.

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC):
  Section 2(c) & 2(l): Definitions of 'cognizable' and 'non-cognizable' offence.
  Section 154: Procedure for information on commission of a cognizable offence (FIR).
  Section 155: Procedure for information on commission of a non-cognizable offence.
  Section 156: Police officer's power to investigate cognizable cases.
  Section 195(1)(b)(i): Bar on court taking cognizance of offences under Sections 193 to 196 IPC (except 195A) unless complaint is in writing by the court.
  Section 340: Procedure for courts to make a complaint.
  Section 195A: Procedure for witnesses in case of threatening, etc. (Introduced in 2009).

3. Basic Judgment Details

This was a criminal appeal heard by the Supreme Court, arising from Special Leave Petitions (SLPs). The appellant was the State of Kerala (and the CBI in connected matters), and the respondent was the accused, Suni @ Sunil, among others. The appeals challenged the orders of the High Courts of Kerala and Karnataka, which had held that the procedure under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC was mandatory for prosecuting an offence under Section 195A IPC. The Supreme Court consolidated these appeals to resolve the conflicting legal position.

4. Core Principle of the Judgment: Analysis of the Procedural Conundrum

The Central Issue

The core legal question before the Supreme Court was: What is the correct procedure for initiating prosecution for an offence under Section 195A of the IPC – by filing an FIR with the police under Section 154 CrPC, or by a formal complaint from the Court under Section 195(1)(b)(i) read with Section 340 CrPC?

This confusion arose because:

1. Section 195A IPC was inserted in 2006 and was specifically categorized as a cognizable offence in the CrPC's First Schedule.

2. However, the adjacent sections in the IPC (Sections 193 to 196) were all non-cognizable and, crucially, were governed by the special procedure under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC, which requires a written complaint by the Court and bars direct cognizance by a Magistrate on a police report.

3. Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC was not amended to explicitly exclude the new offence under Section 195A IPC.

4. In 2009, Section 195A CrPC was introduced, which explicitly stated that "a witness or any other person may file a complaint" for an offence under Section 195A IPC.

This legislative scenario created a conflict, leading to divergent interpretations by various High Courts.

The Supreme Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The Supreme Court conducted a harmonious construction of the statutes to resolve this conflict. Its reasoning is as follows:

• Distinct Nature of Section 195A IPC: The Court emphasized that Section 195A IPC was conceptualized as an offence distinct from its neighboring sections (193-196 IPC). While Sections 193-196 deal with the actual giving or fabricating of false evidence, Section 195A deals with the antecedent act of threatening a person to give false evidence. This distinction is crucial.

• Cognizable vs. Non-Cognizable Classification: The Court gave significant weight to the fact that the legislature, while introducing Section 195A IPC, consciously classified it as a cognizable offence in the CrPC's First Schedule, unlike the non-cognizable offences under Sections 193-196 IPC. A cognizable offence, by definition, allows a police officer to arrest without a warrant and investigate under Sections 154 and 156 CrPC. Applying the restrictive procedure of Section 195 CrPC would nullify this very characteristic.

• Purpose and Pragmatism: The Court reasoned that the offence of threatening a witness often occurs outside the courtroom, sometimes long before the witness is to testify. Requiring the victim to approach the specific court where the proceeding is pending (as per Section 195 CrPC) and await a court-initiated complaint after a preliminary inquiry under Section 340 CrPC would "cripple and hamper the process" of justice. The threat requires immediate police intervention to protect the witness and prevent the perversion of justice.

• Interpretation of Section 195A CrPC: The Court held that the introduction of Section 195A CrPC in 2009 was a clarificatory measure. It provides an additional remedy, not the exclusive one. The use of the word "may" in this section indicates it is not compulsory for a threatened witness to only file a complaint before a Magistrate. It offers an alternative path, especially for those who may prefer to directly approach the judiciary.

• Harmonious Construction: The Court synchronized the provisions, holding that for an offence under Section 195A IPC:
  An FIR can be registered under Section 154 CrPC as it is a cognizable offence, leading to a police investigation.
  Alternatively, a complaint can be filed directly before a Magistrate under Section 195A CrPC by the witness or any other person.
  The restrictive procedure of Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC does not apply to Section 195A IPC.

The Court rejected the argument to bifurcate the offence based on whether the threat was related to a court proceeding or not, stating that such an exercise would amount to rewriting the statute.

5. Final Outcome of the Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the State of Kerala and the CBI.

• The impugned orders of the Kerala High Court and Karnataka High Court were set aside.

• The bail granted to the accused Sunil was cancelled, and he was directed to surrender. However, he was granted liberty to seek fresh bail on other merits.

• The cognizance order taken by the Magistrate in the CBI case and the order dismissing the discharge application were restored.

The Supreme Court authoritatively held that the offence under Section 195A IPC is a cognizable offence, and prosecution for it can be validly initiated either by filing an FIR with the police under Section 154 CrPC or by filing a complaint before a Magistrate under Section 195A CrPC, and the procedure under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC is not mandatory.

6. MCQs Based on the Judgment

Question 1: In the case of State of Kerala vs. Sunil @ Sunil (2025 INSC 1260), the Supreme Court primarily addressed the procedural conflict related to which specific offence?
a) Fabricating false evidence under Section 193 IPC
b) Threatening a person to give false evidence under Section 195A IPC
c) Giving false evidence in a judicial proceeding under Section 193 IPC
d) Defamation and criminal intimidation of a witness

Question 2: According to the Supreme Court's judgment, which of the following is a CORRECT method to initiate legal proceedings for an offence punishable under Section 195A of the Indian Penal Code?
a) Only through a written complaint by the Court where the main case is pending, as per Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC.
b) Only by the victim filing a private complaint directly before a Magistrate.
c) Either by registering an FIR with the police under Section 154 CrPC or by filing a complaint before a Magistrate under Section 195A CrPC.
d) Only after a preliminary inquiry is conducted by the Court under Section 340 CrPC.