Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 · Chapter XIV: Conditions Requisite for Initiation of Proceedings
Section 195: Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to matters and proceedings from before that date, as the repealing law provides.
In plain words
No court can take cognizance of contempt of a public servant's lawful authority (sections 172 to 188 of the Indian Penal Code) except on the written complaint of that public servant or their superior.
- Offences against public justice, such as false evidence, in or about court proceedings, and forgery or use of forged documents produced in court, need the written complaint of that court, an officer it authorises, or a superior court.
- The same applies to conspiracy, attempt or abetment of these offences.
- A public servant's superior can order the complaint withdrawn before the trial concludes.
- "Court" includes civil, revenue and criminal courts and tribunals declared to be courts for this purpose.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
(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 by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, 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. 1. Subs. by Act 2 of 2006, s. 3, for certain words (w.e.f. 16-4-2006).
(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 is 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.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 195
-
Devendra Kumar v. The State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.
High Court affirmed the order passed by the CMM directing registration of the FIR against the petitioner for offences punishable u/ss.186 and 341, Penal Code, 1860. Whether the CMM erred in involving the police in a…
-
Umashankar Yadav & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Through Chief Secretary & Anr.
Whether the High Court erred by not quashing the prosecution against the accused under ss.186 and 353 of Indian Penal Code.
-
B.N. John v. State of U.P. & Anr.
Appellant herein has sought quashing of criminal proceedings arising under sections 353 and 186 of IPC.
- Surinder Mohan & Ors v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Salim Malik @Munna v. State (Nct of Delhi)
- Amarjeet Singh Chatha v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Sh. Vijay Dev Dabas v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr
-
M.R. Ajayan v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Issue arose whether the appellant has the locus standi to prefer this SLP against the impugned order; whether the High Court rightly held the proceedings in question to be hit by the bar u/s. 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C.; and…
- Rahul Kesarwani v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Lakshay Mehra v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Anil Kumar Jain v. Sachin Jain
- Abhishek Jain & Anr v. Sachin Jain
- Shukla Chakraborty v. Snehanshu Das Pandit
- Amandeep Gill & Anr v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi
- Devendra Kumar v. The State & Anr
- Vijay Singh v. Smt. Jyoti Yadav
- Dr. Tarun Kothari v. The State of NCT of Delhi, Through Chief Secretary & Anr
- M/S. Kg Marketing India v. Rashi Santosh Soni & Anr
- Adarsh Kumar Handa v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors
- M/S Kg Marketing India v. Ms. Rashi Santosh Soni & Anr
- Ms Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited v. Sh Mahesh Taneja and Ors
- G L Verma v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Manuel Arrese v. State & Anr
- Mitchell Abrahamsen v. State & Anr
- Stephen C Patrick v. State & Anr
- K V Vaidyanathan & Ors v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Michael J Tangney v. State & Anr
- Ian Cook v. State & Anr
- Coigate Palmolive Company & Ors v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Sanjay Goel v. Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd
- Umesh Sharma v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors
- Vijendra Nath Gupta v. The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Shabnam Hashmi v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Davesh Kumar v. Gauri @ Supriya & Ors
- Sunil Fakay v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Uravashi Fakay v. State of NCT of Delhi
- State v. Ariz Khan Alias Junaid Alias Anna Alis Salim
- Ariz Khan v. State of Delhi
- Kamta Prasad Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation
- Santokh Singh Chawla v. State NCT of Delhi
- Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil v. K. Madan Mohan
- Priya Narang v. State of Delhi (Govt. of Nct) & Ors
- Ashok Gulabrao Bondre v. Vilas Madhukarrao
- State v. Mohd. Qasim & Ors
- State v. Aman Sharma & Ors
- Aman Sharma v. State
- Gopal Johari v. State ( NCT of Delhi) & Ors
- Gopal Johari v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors
- Manan Dudeja v. The State N.C.T. of Delhi
- Akash Verma v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Sanser Pal Singh v. The State of NCT of Delhi
- Amanatullah Khan v. The Commissioner of Police Delhi & Ors
- Himanshu Kumar and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
- Bhima Razu Prasad v. State, Rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cbi/Spe/Acu-Ii
- Priti Saraf & Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
- Rajendra Khare v. Swaati Nirkhi and Ors.
- Jayant Etc. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
- Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) Through Lrs. v. Vinod Kumar Rawat & Ors.
- M/S Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. Prasad Vassudev Keni, Etc. Etc
- Satish Ukey v. Devendra Gangadharrao Fadnavis and Anr.
- Sasikala Pushpa and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu
- Ganesan Rep by Its Power Agent G. Rukmani Ganesan v. The Commissioner, the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board & Ors.
- Hari Steel and General Industries Ltd. & Anr. v. Daljit Singh & Ors.
- Aarish Asgar Qureshi v. Fareed Ahmed Qureshi & Anr.
- Sh. Narendra Kumar Srivastava v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
- State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary and Ors.
- Vishnu Chandru Gaonkar v. N.M. Dessai
- Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
- Amit Vashistha v. Suresh and Another
- State of Goa v. Jose Maria Albert Vales @ Robert Vales
- Central Bureau of Investigation v. M. Sivamani
- Common Cause & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
- Amarsang Nathaji As Himself and As Karta and Manager v. Hardik Harshadbhai Patel and Others
- Babita Lila & Another v. Union of India
- M/S. v. L. S. Finance Ltd. v. S. P. Gupta and Anr.
- Prem Sagar Manocha v. State (Nct of Delhi)
- Raziaamirali Shroff and Others v. M/S Nishuvi Corporation and Others
- State (Government of NCT of Delhi) v. Nitin Gunwant Shah
- Baleshwar Dayal Jaiswal v. Bank of India & Ors.
- M.P. Steel Corporation v. Commissioner of Central Excise
- State of NCT of Delhi v. Sanjay
- Manzoor Ali Khan v. Union of India & Ors.
- Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Centeral Bureau of Investigation & Anr.
- Central Bureau of Investigation, Lucknow, U.P. v. Indra Bhushan Singh & Ors.
- Vishal Agrawal & Anr. v. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board & Anr.
- Perumal v. Janaki
- Ashok Kumar Aggarwal v. Neeraj Kumar & Anr.
- Ashok Kumar Aggarwal v. Union of India & Ors.
- Kishorebhai Gandubhai Pethani v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
- C.P. Subhash v. Inspector of Police Chennai & Ors.
- State of Gujarat and Anr. v. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal Bar Association and Anr.
- Ram Dhan v. State of U.P. and Anr.
- Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Dr. Manmohan Singh and Another
- Iqbal Singh Narang & Ors. v. Veeran Narang
- Abdul Rehman & Ors. v. K.M. Anees-Ul-Haq
- The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Vimal Kumar Surana and Another
- C. Muniappan & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu
- M/S. Kapil Corepacks Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Shri Harbans Lal (Since Deceased) Through Lrs.
- Mahesh Chand Sharma v. State of U.P. & Ors.
- S. Palani Velayutham & Ors. v. District Collector, Tirunvelveli, Tamil Nadu & Ors.