Private complaint barred for false evidence offences; court complaint is required before cognizance under the CrPC.

Section 193 IPC offences of false evidence in judicial proceedings cannot be taken cognizance of on a private complaint where Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC applies. The CrPC requires a complaint in writing by the court concerned, and Section 340 CrPC makes court-initiated prosecution contingent on the court first deciding that action is expedient in the interests of justice. A private complaint is therefore barred for this category of offence. Reliance on authority dealing with forgery before production in court was inapplicable because it concerned Section 195(1)(b)(ii), not false evidence under Section 195(1)(b)(i).

---

---

Issues: Whether cognizance of an offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 could be taken on the basis of a private complaint without a complaint in writing by the court concerned under Sections 195 and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 punishes false evidence in judicial proceedings, while Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 bars a court from taking cognizance of such an offence unless there is a complaint in writing by the court in relation to whose proceeding the offence is alleged to have been committed. Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prescribes the procedure for such a complaint and makes it clear that prosecution for offences of this nature is to be initiated by the court after considering whether it is expedient in the interests of justice. Private complaints are therefore excluded in respect of offences covered by Section 195(1)(b)(i). The reliance placed on the decision dealing with forgery of a document before it was produced in court was held inapplicable because that case concerned Section 195(1)(b)(ii), not false evidence under Section 195(1)(b)(i).

Conclusion: Cognizance on the basis of a private complaint was not maintainable, and the order taking cognizance was rightly set aside.

---