Private complaints for false statement offences are barred where court-initiated prosecution under criminal procedure is required.

A private complaint alleging offences of false statement or false charge in relation to court proceedings is barred where sections 195 and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure apply. Such offences cannot be initiated by a private complainant; prosecution must be set in motion by the court concerned or a lawful superior court through the statutory procedure. The High Court is not confined to the Magistrate's dismissal and may, in an appropriate case, exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to consider action under the statutory scheme where the interests of justice so require. The core principle is that the bar on private cognizance protects the administration of justice, while preserving limited court-driven initiation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a private complaint alleging commission of offences under sections 193 or 211 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was maintainable in view of sections 195 and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (ii) whether the High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction to initiate proceedings notwithstanding the Magistrate's dismissal of the private complaint.

Issue (i): Whether a private complaint alleging commission of offences under sections 193 or 211 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was maintainable in view of sections 195 and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The complaint was founded on an allegation that a false statement was made in a police charge-sheet. The Court noted that such facts may not strictly attract section 193 and may instead fall within section 211, but both offences are covered by section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 when alleged to have been committed in relation to a proceeding in court. Section 340 provides the procedural mechanism for such prosecution only through the court concerned or its lawful superior, not through a private complaint.

Conclusion: The private complaint was not maintainable, and the Magistrate was correct in dismissing it.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction to initiate proceedings notwithstanding the Magistrate's dismissal of the private complaint.

Analysis: The Court held that the High Court was not confined to reviewing only the Magistrate's order. By virtue of section 195(4) and the constitutional supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, a High Court can exercise the power contemplated by section 195(1) where justice demands it. The statutory bar under section 195 is intended to prevent improper initiation of prosecutions, but it does not disable the superior court from acting in appropriate cases, especially where an allegation of false charging affects the administration of justice.

Conclusion: The High Court should have considered exercise of its jurisdiction under section 195 and section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the matter was sent back for appropriate action in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: For offences covered by section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, cognizance cannot be taken on a private complaint, but the court concerned or a competent superior court may initiate proceedings under section 340 in the interests of justice, and a High Court may exercise that power in an appropriate case by virtue of its supervisory jurisdiction.

---