Anil Kumar J. Bavishi vs. Mahendra Kumar Jalan @ M.K. Jalan, 2025

• The appellant filed a private complaint before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, accusing the respondent of committing offences under Sections 193 (punishment for false evidence), 199 (false statement made in declaration which is by law receivable as evidence), and 200 (using as true such declaration knowing it to be false) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• The complaint was related to alleged false evidence given before a Municipal Building Tribunal, which was not a Court.
• The Calcutta High Court quashed the complaint, stating that private complaints could not be filed for offences committed before a Tribunal, as these offences did not occur in a Court. The appellant challenged the High Court's decision by filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court.

1. Whether the appellant could file a private complaint for offences under Sections 193, 199, and 200 IPC for offences allegedly committed before a Tribunal, specifically the Municipal Building Tribunal, or if the procedure under Section 195 read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. applied only to offences committed before a Court?
2. Whether the Calcutta High Court erred in quashing the complaint on the grounds that the alleged offences were committed before a Tribunal?

The Supreme Court, affirming the decision of the High Court, held that:

• The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Calcutta High Court, clarifying that Section 195 read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. applies only to offences committed before a Court and not a Tribunal.
• The Court explained that while Sections 193, 199, and 200 IPC could apply to offences committed either before a Court or at any other place, since the alleged offences in this case occurred before a Tribunal (which is not considered a Court under the law), the remedy prescribed under Section 195 Cr.P.C. could not be invoked.
• The Court held that the only remedy available to the appellant was to file a private complaint for the alleged offences committed before the Tribunal, as such offences do not fall under the procedural framework established for offences committed in a Court.
• The Court specifically referred to the decision in Iqbal Singh Narang & Ors. v. Veeran Narang (2012), which reinforced that the procedure under Section 195 Cr.P.C. and Section 340 Cr.P.C. is applicable only in cases involving Courts, not Tribunals.

The judgement clarified the applicability of following provisions:

• This ruling clarifies the jurisdictional scope of Section 195 Cr.P.C. in relation to offences committed in the context of Tribunals versus Courts. It reinforces the principle that Tribunals, even though they may have quasi-judicial powers, are not equivalent to Courts for the purpose of criminal proceedings under the Cr.P.C.
• This judgment ensures that individuals seeking to challenge offences such as perjury or false evidence before a Tribunal are not left without recourse.
• The right to file a private complaint remains intact, although it is subject to the specific procedures for such complaints.
• The ruling emphasizes the need for distinct legal processes when dealing with Tribunals versus Courts, ensuring clarity in how legal action can be initiated based on the jurisdiction in question. It also highlights the procedural nuances that individuals and practitioners need to be aware of when seeking to address criminal offences in non-Court settings.