False evidence in court triggers the complaint bar; forgery labels cannot bypass the statutory safeguard.

Where the substance of the allegation is false evidence, fabrication of false evidence, or corrupt use of such evidence in a judicial proceeding, the bar under section 195 CrPC applies and cognizance cannot be taken without a complaint by the court concerned. The Court distinguished that category from forgery and use of a forged document as genuine under sections 465 and 471 IPC, which require making a false document and dishonest or fraudulent use of a forged document. On the facts, the conduct was treated as falling within the false-evidence provisions rather than forgery, so prosecution in the forgery form was not maintainable without the statutory complaint.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the alleged conduct was essentially an offence of false evidence or fabrication of false evidence, so as to attract the bar of complaint under section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (ii) Whether the facts disclosed only the offences of forgery and use of a forged document as genuine under sections 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, so that prosecution could proceed without a court complaint.

Issue (i): Whether the alleged conduct was essentially an offence of false evidence or fabrication of false evidence, so as to attract the bar of complaint under section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguished between offences relating to false evidence in judicial proceedings and offences relating to forgery and use of forged documents. Where the real substance of the conduct is giving false evidence, fabricating false evidence, or corruptly using false evidence in court, the protective procedure of section 195 applies and cognizance cannot be taken without a complaint by the court concerned. The facts showed that the document was produced in court to support testimony and to induce an erroneous view in the judicial proceeding.

Conclusion: The conduct fell within the class of offences to which section 195 applied, and cognizance without a court complaint was barred.

Issue (ii): Whether the facts disclosed only the offences of forgery and use of a forged document as genuine under sections 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, so that prosecution could proceed without a court complaint.

Analysis: Forgery under section 463 requires the making of a false document, and section 471 requires dishonest or fraudulent use of a forged document as genuine. On the facts, there was no reliable basis to treat the conduct as forgery or as dishonest or fraudulent use within section 471. The dominant character of the act was the use of false evidence in the judicial proceeding, which corresponded to sections 192, 193 and 196 rather than sections 465 and 471. The prosecution could not avoid the statutory safeguard by misdescribing the offence.

Conclusion: The facts did not support prosecution under sections 465 and 471, and the prosecution was not maintainable in that form.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the prosecution was held to have been wrongly launched under the forgery provisions instead of the provisions governing false evidence, and the statutory requirement of a court complaint had not been satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the substance of the allegation is false evidence or fabrication of false evidence in a judicial proceeding, the prosecution cannot bypass the mandatory complaint requirement by framing the case as forgery or use of a forged document as genuine.

---