False evidence during investigation is not barred by Section 195 CrPC if the material has not reached a court proceeding.

Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC bars prosecution only where the false evidence has a direct or reasonably close nexus with an actual court proceeding; fabrication during investigation, before the material reaches court, is outside that bar. The deeming fiction in Explanation 2 to Section 193 IPC treats an investigation as a stage of a judicial proceeding for punishing false evidence, but it does not by itself convert the investigation into a proceeding in court for Section 195. Accordingly, a complaint for false evidence fabricated at the investigative stage remains maintainable, and the jurisdictional objection based on Section 195 fails.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 bars prosecution by the investigating agency for an offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 when the false evidence is fabricated during investigation before the matter reaches the trial court; (ii) Whether an investigation that is a "stage of a judicial proceeding" under Explanation 2 to Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is necessarily a "proceeding in any court" for the purpose of Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 bars prosecution by the investigating agency for an offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 when the false evidence is fabricated during investigation before the matter reaches the trial court.

Analysis: Section 195(1)(b)(i) is intended to prevent vexatious prosecutions for offences having a direct or reasonably close nexus with court proceedings. The bar is attracted where the offence is committed in, or in relation to, a proceeding in court so that the court itself is the proper authority to decide whether a complaint is expedient in the interests of justice. However, where false evidence is fabricated during investigation to mislead the investigating agency, the immediate victim is the investigating authority, not the court. At that stage, the evidence has not yet entered the judicial record and the court has no occasion to assess whether a complaint should be made.

Conclusion: Section 195(1)(b)(i) does not bar prosecution by the investigating agency in such a case, and the complaint under Section 193 is maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether an investigation that is a "stage of a judicial proceeding" under Explanation 2 to Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is necessarily a "proceeding in any court" for the purpose of Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Explanation 2 to Section 193 enlarges the scope of false evidence by deeming an investigation preliminary to a proceeding before a court of justice to be a stage of a judicial proceeding. That deeming fiction ensures punishment for fabrication at the investigative stage, but it does not automatically convert every such investigation into a court proceeding under Section 195(1)(b)(i). The distinction between a stage of a judicial proceeding and a proceeding in court remains material. Unless the false evidence is brought before the court or is otherwise committed in relation to an actual court proceeding with the requisite nexus, the statutory bar does not operate.

Conclusion: An investigation deemed to be a stage of a judicial proceeding is not, by that fact alone, a proceeding in court for Section 195(1)(b)(i).

Final Conclusion: The legal questions were answered against the accused, and the convictions were sustained on merits as well as on the jurisdictional objection.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 195(1)(b)(i) bars only those prosecutions for false evidence that bear a direct or reasonably close nexus with an actual court proceeding; fabrication of evidence during investigation, before it reaches the court, is outside the bar even though it may fall within Section 193 by virtue of its deeming provision.

---