State of Kerala vs. Suni @ Sunil, 2025

• The Respondent–accused was charged under Section 195A IPC for threatening a witness (approver) in a murder trial.

• The Kerala High Court granted bail to the accused, holding that the police lacked authority to register an FIR for the offence under Section 195A IPC.

• The High Court reasoned that such offences could only be prosecuted through a written complaint by the concerned court, as per Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C.

• The State of Kerala appealed the decision before the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s interpretation of procedural law.

1. Whether an offence under Section 195A IPC (threatening a witness) is cognizable, thereby allowing the police to register an FIR without a court complaint?

2. Whether Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. restrict the police’s power to act in such cases?

3. Whether the High Court erred in granting bail based on an incorrect interpretation of procedural law?

The Supreme Court, in a judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Kumar (with Justice Alok Aradhe concurring), set aside the Kerala High Court’s decision.
The Court ruled that:

• Section 195A IPC creates a distinct and cognizable offence, unlike Sections 193–196 IPC, which require a court complaint under Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C.

• The police are empowered to directly register an FIR and investigate under Sections 154 and 156 Cr.P.C.

• The requirement of a prior court complaint would be an impractical burden on threatened witnesses and would hamper the administration of justice.

• The accused was directed to surrender before the trial court within two weeks, and the State’s appeal was allowed.

• The Supreme Court’s reasoning reinforces the independence of Section 195A IPC as a separate procedural and substantive provision designed to protect witnesses.

• By distinguishing Section 195A IPC from other offences under Chapter XI of the IPC (Offences against Public Justice), the Court clarified that witness intimidation demands immediate police intervention, not a delayed court-driven complaint process.

• The judgment aligns with the objective of criminal procedure reforms that prioritize witness protection and swift investigation in criminal trials.

• It also recognizes the practical difficulties faced by witnesses in directly approaching courts — a concern the legislature sought to address by making Section 195A IPC cognizable.

• The Court’s interpretation thus strengthens the procedural autonomy of police in handling such threats and enhances the credibility of the criminal justice process.