Holding

A private complaint under Section 190 CrPC is maintainable and the High Court, by virtue of Sections 195 and 340 CrPC and its constitutional superintendence power, must entertain the complaint and may proceed against the police officer.

Summary

The appellant, Perumal, was acquitted of offences under Sections 417 and 506(i) IPC after a charge‑sheet filed by Sub‑Inspector Janaki alleged his involvement in a pregnancy that a medical report had disproved. Perumal then lodged a private complaint under Section 190 CrPC seeking to try Janaki for an offence under Section 193 IPC, alleging that the charge‑sheet contained a palpably false statement. The magistrate dismissed the complaint on the ground that Sections 195 and 340 CrPC made it non‑maintainable, a decision affirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court examined whether a private complaint is maintainable when not filed by the person contemplated under Section 195, and whether the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Sections 195 and 340 despite the original court being subordinate. It held that the High Court, as a court of superintendence, has both authority and an obligation to entertain such complaints and remitted the matter for appropriate action. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the case was sent back to the High Court for further proceedings.

Issues considered

The maintainability of a private complaint under Section 190 CrPC against a police officer for an alleged offence under Section 193 IPC when the complaint is not filed by the person contemplated under Section 195 CrPC.
Whether the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Sections 195 and 340 CrPC to entertain the complaint despite the original court being subordinate.
Whether a statement made in a charge‑sheet by a police officer amounts to "giving false evidence" under Section 191 IPC or falls within Section 211 IPC.
The extent of the High Court's duty to exercise its superintendence powers in cases involving alleged false statements by public servants.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 190, s. 195, s. 340
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 191, s. 193, s. 211, s. 417, s. 506

Subjects

private complaintsection 195 CrPCsection 340 CrPCfalse evidencesection 193 IPCsection 211 IPCpolice officersuperintendenceHigh Court jurisdictioncriminal procedurefalse statementcharge-sheet

Judgment

[2014] 1 S.C.R. 591

PERU MAL A
v.
JANAK!
(Criminal Appeal No.169 of 2014)
JANUARY 20, 2014
8
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI AND J. CHELAMESWAR, J.)

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973:

ss. 195, 340 - Private complaint - Maintainability - c
Private complaint. against respondent-police officer by
appellant praying for trial of the respondent uls.193, /PC on
the ground that the appellant was prosecuted in a criminal
case on the basis of a palpably false statement made by the
respondent - Magistrate dismissed the complaint on the
0
ground that in view of ss. 195 and 340, the complaint of the
appellant; was not maintainable - High Court affirmed the
same - Held: In the light of the language of s.195, the
conclusion of the Magistrate in dismissing the complaint for
the reason that the complaint is not filed by the person
contemplated u/s. 195 is correct - As a matter of fact, the Court E
before whom the instant complaint was lodged was not the
same Court before whom the appellant was prosecuted by the
respondent:- However, both s.195(1) and s.340(2) authorise
the exercise of power conferred u/s.195(1) by any other court
to which the court in respect of which the offence is committed F
is subordinate to - The High Court, being constitutional court,
invested with the powers of superintendence over all courts
within the territory over which it exercises its jurisdiction is
certainly a Court which could have exercised the jurisdiction
u!s.195(1) - High Courts not only have the authority to G
exercise such jurisdiction but also have an obligation to
exercise such power in appropriate cases - Therefore, matter
remitted to High Court for appropriate course of action to-

591
H
592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 1 S.C.R.

A initiate proceedings against respondent on the basis of the
complaint of appellant in accordance with law - Penal Code,
1860 - ss.191, 193.

On a complaint of one 'N' that the appellant enticed
her of marrying her and had sexual interaction and on
8 account of that 'N' became pregnant, a case was
registered against the appellant under Sections 417 and
506(i) IPC by the respondent-sub-inspector. The
respondent thereafter filed a charge sheet with an
assertion that the appellant was responsible for making
C 'N' pregnant. The Magistrate dismissed the complaint and
appellant was acquitted of both the charges. The High
Court affirmed the same. Thereafter, the appellant filed a
complaint under Section 190, Cr.P.C. praying that the
respondent be tried for an offence under Section 193 IPC.
D The complaint was dismissed on the ground that in view
of Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. the complaint of the
appellant was not maintainable. The High Court affirmed
the order of dismissal of complaint. The instant appeal
was filed challenging the order of the High Court.
E
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the
High Court, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The respondent had filed a charge-sheet
with an assertion that the appellant was responsible for
F pregnancy of 'N', however, even before the filing of the
charge-sheet, a definite medical opinion was available to
the respondent (secured during the course of the
investigation of the offence alleged against the appellant)
to the effect that 'N' was not pregnant. Still the
G respondent chose to assert in the charge-sheet that 'N'
was pregnant. Thus, at every stage of the matter, the
enquiry was misdirected. The facts prima facie may not
constitute an offence under section 193 IPC but may
constitute an offence under section 211 IPC. This aspect
H was not examined at any stage in the case. The offence
PERUMAL v. JANAKI 593

under section 193 IPC is an act of giving false evidence A
or fabricating false evidence in a judicial proceeding. The
act of giving false evidence is defined under section 191
IPC. To constitute an act of giving false evidence, a
person must make a statement which is either false to the
knowledge or belief of the maker or which the maker 8
does not believe to be true. Further, it requires that such
a statement is made by a person (1) who is legally bound
by an oath; (2) by an express provision of law to state
the truth; or (3) being bound by law to make a declaration
upon any subject. [Paras 13, 14, 15 and 16] [600-C-H; 601- C
A-8, E-F; 602-A]

1.2. A police officer filing a charge-sheet does not
make any statement on oath nor he is bound by any
express provision of law to state the truth though being
a public servant is obliged to act in good faith. Whether D
the statement made by the police officer in a charge-sheet
amounts to a declaration upon any subject within the
meaning of the clause "being bound by law to make a
declaration upon any subject" occurring under section
191 of the IPC is a question which requires further E
examination. On the other hand, section 211 of the IPC
deals with an offence of instituting or causing to be
instituted any criminal proceeding or falsely charging any
person of having committed an offence even when there
is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding to the F
knowledge of the person instituting or causing the·
institution of the criminal proceedings. Irrespective of the
fact whether the offence disclosed by the complaint of
the appellant is an offence falling either under section 193
or 211 of the IPC, section 195 of the Cr.P .C. declares that G
no Court shall take cognizance of these two offences
except in the manner specified under section 195 of the
Cr.P.C. In the light of the language of section 195 Cr.P.C.
the conclusion of the Magistrate in dismissing the
complaint of the appellant for the reason that the H
594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 1 S.C.R.

A complaint is not filed by the person contemplated under
section 195 Cr.P.C. is correct. As a matter of fact the
Court before which the instant complaint was lodged is
not the same Court before which the appellant was
prosecuted by the respondent. [Paras 17-20] [602-C-F;
B 603-B-D]
2. Under section 340(1) of the Cr.P.C., it is stipulated
that whenever it appears that any one of the offences
mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 195
appears to have been committed in or in relation to a
C proceeding before a Court, that Court either on an
application made to it or otherwise make a complaint
thereof in writing to the competent Magistrate after
following the procedure mentioned under section 340 of
the Cr.P.C. Admittedly, the appellant did not make an
D application to the judicial magistrate No.1 under section
340 to 'make a complaint' against the respondent nor the
said magistrate suo moto made a complaint. Therefore,
magistrate No.2 before whom the private complaint is
made by the appellant had no option but to dismiss the
E complaint. But the High Court, is not justified in confining
itself to the examination of the correctness of the order
of the magistrate dismissing the said private complaint.
Both Section 195(1) and Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. authorise
the exercise of the power conferred under Section 195(1)
F by any other court to which the court in respect of which
the offence is committed is subordinate to. [Paras 21, 22
and 23] [603-D-E; 604-A-D]
3.1. Section 195(4), Cr.P .C. creates a legal fiction
whereby it is declared that the original court is
G subordinate to that court to which appeals ordinarily lie
from the judgments or orders of the original court ('the
appellate court'). Such a fiction must be understood in the
context of Article 227 of the Constitution of India and
Section 10(1) and 15(1) of Cr.P.C. Article 227 confers the
H power of superintendence on a High Court over all courts
PERUMAL v. JANAKI 595

and tribunals functioning within the territories in relation A
. to which a High Court exercises jurisdiction. Section 10(1)
and 15(1) of Cr.P.C. declare that the Assistant Sessions
· Judges and Chief Judicial Magistrates are subordinate to
the Session Judge and other Judicial Magistrates to be
subordinate to the Chief Judicial Magistrate subject to the s
control of the Session Judge. Section 195(4) deals with
the authority of the superior courts in the context of taking
cognizance of various offences mentioned in Section
195(1). Such offences are relatable to civil, criminal and
revenue courts etc. Each one of the streams of these c
courts may have their administrative hierarchy depending
upon under the law by which such courts are brought
into existence. It is also well known that certain courts
have appellate jurisdiction while certain courts only have
original jurisdiction. Appellate jurisdiction is the creature
0
of statute and depending upon the scheme of a particular
statute, the forum of appeal varies. Generally, the
appellate fora are created on the basis of either subject
matter of dispute or economic implications or nature of
crime etc. Therefore, all that sub-section (4) of Section E
195 says is that irrespective of the fact whether a
particular court is subordinate to another court in the
hierarchy of ju~icial administration, for the purpose of
exercise of powers under Section 195(1), every appellate
court competent to entertain the appeals either from
decrees or sentence passed by the original court is F
treated to be a court concurrently competent to exercise
the jurisdiction under Section 195(1). High Courts being
constitutional courts invested with the powers of
superintendence over all courts within the territory over
which the High Court exercises its jurisdiction is certainly G
a Court which can exercise the jurisdiction under Section
195(1). In the absence of any specific constitutional
limitation of prescription on the exercise of such powers,
the High Courts may exercise such power either on an
H
596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 1 S.C.R.

A application made to it or suo moto whenever the interests
of justice demand. [Paras 24 and 25] [604-D-E; 605-A-C;
606-A-F]

3.2. The High Courts not only have the authority to
exeicise such jurisdiction but also have an obligation to
8
exercise such power in appropriate cases. Such
obligation flows from two factors - (1) the embargo
created by Section 195 restricting the liberty of aggrieved
persons to initiate criminal proceedings with respect to
C offences prescribed under Section 195; (2) such offences
pertain to either the contempt of lawful authorities of
public servants or offences against public justice. The
power of superintendence like any other power impliedly
carries an obligation to exercise powers in an appropriate
case to maintain the majesty of the judicial process and
D the purity of the legal system. Such an obligation
becomes more profound when these allegations of
commission of offences pertain to public justice. In the
case on hand, when the appellant alleged that he had
been prosecuted on the basis of a palpably false
E statement coupled with the further allegation in his
complaint that the respondent did so for extraneous
considerations, it is an appropriate case where the High
Court ought to have exercised the jurisdiction under
Section 195 Cr.P.C. The allegation such as the one made
F by the complainant against the respondent is not
uncommon. In a different context, it was held "there is no
rule of law that common sense should be put in cold ·
storage". Indian Constitution is designed on the theory
of checks and balances. A theory which is the product
G of the belief that all power corrupts - such belief is based
on experience. The matter is remitted to the High Court
for further appropriate course of action to initiate
proceedings against the respondent on the basis of the
complaint of the appellant in accordance with law. [Para
H 26-29] [606-G; 607-A-B; 608-A-E]
PERUMAL v. JANAKI 597

Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr. A
2005 (4) sec 370 - relied on.
Case Law Reference:
2005 (4) sec 310 relied on Para 27
8
CRIMINAL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 169 of 20014.

From the J!-Jdgment and Order dated 19.08.2011 of the
High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. R.C. 1119 of 2011.
c
P.R. Kovilan Poongkuntran, V. Vasudevan, Geeta Kovilan,
T. Harish Kumar for the Appellant.

Aishwarya Bhati for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D

CHELAMESWAR, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. Aggrieved by an order in Crl. R.C. No.1119 of 2011 of
the High Court of Madras, the unsuccessful petitioner therein E
preferred the instant appeal.

3. A petition in C.M.P: No.4561 of 2010 (private complaint)
under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
'·. (hereinafter for short referred to as "the Cr.P.C.") filed by the
appellant herein against the respondent came to be dismissed F
by the Judicial Magistrate No.2 at Pollachi by his judgment
dated 31st August 2010. Challenging the same, tbe
abovementioned Crl. R.C. was filed.

4. The factual background of the case is as follows: G
5. The respondent was working as a Sub-Inspector in an
All-Women Police Station, Pollachi at the relevant point of time.
On 18th May 2008, one Nagai reported to the respondent that
the appellant herein had cheated her. The respondent
registered Crime No.18/08 under sections 417 and 506(i) of H
598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 120141 1 s.d.R.

A the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter for short referred to as "the
IPC"). Eventually, the respondent filed a charge-sheet, the
relevant portion of which reads as follows:

"On 26.12.07, that the accused called upon the de-fado
complainant for an outing and while going in the nigtit -at
B
around 10.00 via Vadugapalayam lttori route the accu~ed
enticed the de-facto complainant of marrying her and had
sexual interaction several times in the nearby jungle and
on account of which the complainant became pregnant
and when she asked the accused to marry him he
c threatened the complainant of killing her if she disclosed
the above fact to anybody.

Hence the accused committed an offence punishable u/~.
417, 506 (i) of IPC."
D
[emphasis supplie~]
6. The appellant was tried for the offences mentiohed
above by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Pollachi. Tf.le
learned Judicial Magistrate by his judgment dated 15th Mare!;
E 201 O acquitted the appellant of both the charges.

7. It appears that the said judgment has become final.

8. In the light of the acquittal, the appellant filed a complaint
(C.M.P. No.4561 of2010) under section 190 of the Cr.P.C .. on
F the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2 at Pollachi praying that
the respondent be tried for an offence under section 193 of the
IPC. The said complaint came to be dismissed by an order
dated 31st August 2010 on the ground that in view of sections
195 and 340 of the Cr.P.C. the complaint of the appellant herein
G is not maintainable.

9. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the appellant herein
unsuccessfully carried the matter to the High Court. Hence the
present appeal.
H
PERUMAL v. JANAK! [J. CHELAMESWAR, J.] 599

10. The case of the appellant herein in his complaint is that A
though Nagai alleged an offence of cheating against the
appellant which led to the pregnancy of Nagai, such an offence
was not proved against him. Upon the registration of Crime
No.18/08, Nagai was subjected to medical examination. She
was not found to be pregnant. Dr. Geetha, who examined Nagai, B
categorically opined that Nagai was not found to be pregnant
.. on the date of examination which took place six days after the
, registration of the FIR. In spite of the definite medical opinion
that Nagai was not pregnant, the respondent chose to file a
charge-sheet with an allegation that Nagai became pregnant. C
Therefore, according to the appellant, the charge-sheet was
filed with a deliberate false statement by the respondent herein.
The appellant, therefore, prayed in his complaint as follows;

"It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to take this complaint on file, try the accused U/s. D
193 IPC for deliberately giving false evidence in the Court
as against the complainant, and punish the accused and
pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble court
deems fit and proper."
E
11. The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint on ttie
ground that section 195 of the Cr.P.C. bars criminal coUlits to
take cognizance of an offence under section 193 of ttfe IPC
except on the complaint in writing of that Court or an officer of
that Court in relation to any proceeding in the Court where the F
offence under section 193 is said to have been committed and
a private complaint such as the one on hand is not maintainable.
12. The High Court declined to interfere with the matter in
exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The operative portion of
the order under challenge reads as follows: G

"3 .... This court is in agreement with the conclusion of the
court below in dismissing the complaint. The complaint
provided very little to take action upon, particularly, where
. this court finds that the respondent had not in any manner H
600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 1 S.C.R.

A tampered with the medical record so as to mulct the
petitioner with criminal liability. The wording in the final
report informing of the de facto complainant having been
pregnant can in the facts and circumstances of the case,
be seen only as a mistake.
8 4. In the result, the criminal revision stands dismissed."

13. We regret to place on record that at every stage of this
matter the inquiry was misdirected.

c 14. The facts relevant for the issue on hand are that:-

(1) The appellant was prosecuted for the offences under
sections 417 and 506 (i) IPC. (The factual allegations
forming the basis of such a prosecution are already noted
earlier).
D
(2) The respondent filed a charge-sheet with an assertion
that the appellant was responsible for pregnancy of Nagai.

(3) Even before the filing of the charge-sheet, a definite
E
medical opinion was available to the respondent (secured
during the course of the investigation of the offence alleged
against the appellant) to the effect that Nagai was not
pregnant.

(4) Still the respondent chose to assert in the charge-sheet
F that Nagai was pregnant.

(5) The prosecution against the appellant ended in
acquittal.
G 15. The abovementioned indisputable facts, in our opinion,
prima facie may not constitute an offence under section 193
IPC but may constitute an offence under section 211 IPC. We
say prima facie only for the reason this aspect has not been
examined at any stage in the case nor any submission is made
before us on either side but we cannot help taking notice of the
H basic facts and the legal position.
PERUMAL v. JANAK! [J. CHELAMESWAR, J.] 601

16. The offence under section 1931 IPC is an act of giving A
false evidence or fabricating false evidence in a judicial
proceeding. The act of giving false evidence is defined under
section 191 IPC as follows:

"191. Giving false evidence.- Whoever, being legally B
bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state
the truth, or being bound by law· to make a declaration upon
any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which
he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe
to be true, is said to give false evidence.
c
Explanation 1.-A statement is within the meaning
of this section, whether it is made verbally or otherwise.

Explanation 2.-A false statement as to the belief
of the person attesting is within the meaning of this section, D
and a person may be guilty of giving false evidence by
stating that he believes a thing which he does not believe,
as well as by stating that he knows a thing which he does
not know."

It can be seen from the definition that to constitute an act E
of giving false evidence, a person must make a statement
which is either false to the knowledge or belief of the maker or
which the maker does not believe to be true. Further, it requires
that such a statement is made by a person (1) who is legally
F
1. Section 193. Punishment for false evidence.-Whoever intentionally gives
false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceedings, or fabricates false
evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extended to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine,
and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates fale evidence in any other G
case, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extended to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation 1.-A trial before a Court-martial; is a judicial proceeding.
Explanation 2.-An investigation directed by law preliminary to a
proceeding before a Court of Justice, is a stage of a judicial proceeding,
though that investigation may not take place before a Court of Justice. H
602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 1 S.C.R.

A bound by an oath; (2) by an express provision of law to state
the truth; or (3) being bound by law to make a declaration upon
any subject.

17. A police officer filing a charge-sheet does not make
B any statement on oath nor is bound by any express provision
of law to state the truth though in our opinion being a public
servant is obliged to act in good faith. Whether the statement
made by the police officer in a charge-sheet amounts to a
declaration upon any subject within the meaning of the clause
C "being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject"
occurring under section 191 of the IPC is a question which
requires further examination.

18. On the other hand, section 211 of the IPC deals with
an offence of instituting or causing to be instituted any criminal
D proceeding or falsely charging any person of having committed
an offence even when there is no just or lawful ground for such
proceeding to the knowledge of the person instituting or
causing the institution of the criminal proceedings.

E 19. Irrespective of the fact whether the offence disclosed
by the complaint of the appellant herein is an offence falling
either under section 193 or 211 of the IPC, section 195 of the
Cr.P.C. declares that no Court shall take cognizance of either
of the abovementioned two offences except in the manner
F specified under section 195 of the Cr.P.C.:

"195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public
servants, for offences against public justice and for
offences relating to documents given in evidence.-(1) No
Court shall take cognizance-
G
x x x x x
(b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following
sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely,
sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211
H (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to
PERUMAL v. JANAKI [J. CHELAMESWAR, J.] 603

have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding A
in any Court, or

except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such
officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing
in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that court is
B
subordinate."

20. In the light of the language of section 195 Cr.P .C. we
do not find fault with the conclusion of the learned Magistrate
in dismissing the complaint of the appellant herein for the
reason that the complaint is not filed by the person c
contemplated under section 195 Cr.P.C. It may be mentioned
here that as a matter of fact the Court before which the instant
complaint was lodged is not the same Court before which the
appellant herein was prosecuted by the respondent.
D
21. Under section 340(1) of the Cr.P.C., it is stipulated that
whenever it appears that any one of the offences mentioned in
clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 195 appears to have
been committed in or in relation to a proceeding before a
Court, that Court either on an application made to it or
E
otherwise make a complaint thereof in writing to the competent
Magistrate after following the procedure mentioned under
section 340 of the Cr.P.C. 2
2. Section 340. Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195.-(1) When upon
an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion
that it is in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient F
in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence
referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 195, which appears
to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or,
as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence
in a proceeding in that court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry,
if any, as it thinks necessary,-
G
(a) record a finding to that effect;
(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;
(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;
(d) take sufficient security for the appearance for the accused before such
Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it
necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and H
604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 1 S.C.R.

A 22. Admittedly, the appellant herein did not make an
application to the judicial magistrate No.1, Pollachi under
section 340 to 'make a complaint' against the respondent
herein nor the said magistrate suo moto made a complaint.
Therefore, the learned judicial magistrate No.2 before whom
B the private complaint is made by the appellant had no option
but to dismiss the complaint.

23. But the High Court, in our view, is not justified in
confining itself to the examination of the correctness of the order
C of the magistrate dismissing the said private complaint. Both
Section 195(1) and Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. authorise the
exercise of the power conferred under Section 195(1) by any
other court to which the court in respect of which the offence is
committed is subordinate to. (hereinafter referred to for the
sake of convenience as 'the original court')
D
24. It can be seen from the language of Section 195(4),
Cr.P.C. that it creates a legal fiction whereby it is declared that
the original court is subordinate to that court to which appeals
ordinarily lie from the judgments or orders of the original court.
E (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellate court') In our view, such

(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence befor such Magistrate.

(2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section (1) in respect of an
offence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint
F under sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application
for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such
former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of section
195.

3. A complaint made under this section shall be signed.-

G (a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of
the Court as the Court may appoint;

(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court or by such officer of
1 the Court as the Court may authorise in writing in this behalf.

4. In this section, "Court" has the same meaning as in section 195."
H
PERUMAL v. JANAKI [J. CHELAMESWAR, J.] 605

a fiction must be understood in the context of Article 2273 of A
the Constitution of India and Section 10(1) and 15(1) of Cr.P.C.
Article 2274 confers the power of superintendence on a High
Court over all courts and tribunals functioning within the
territories in relation to which a High Court exercises
jurisdiction. Section 10(1) and 15(1) of Cr.P.C. declare that the B
Assistant Sessions Judges and Chief Judicial Magistrates are
subordinate to the Session Judge and other Judicial
Magistrates to be subordinate to the Chief Judicial Magistrate
subject to the control of the Session Judge. It may be
remembered that Section 195(4) deals with the authority of the c
superior courts in the context of taking cognizance of various

3. 227. Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court-(1) Every
. High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals
throughout the territories iii relation to which it exercise jurisdiction.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the High D
Court may-
(a) call for returns from such courts;
(b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the
pratice and proceedings of such courts; and
(c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by E
the officers of any such courts.
(3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff
and all clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and
pleader practicing therein;
Provided that any rules made, form prescribed or tables settled under
clause (2) or clause (3) shall not be inconsistent with the provision of any F
law for the times being in forces, and shall require the previous approval
of the Governor.
(4) Nothing in this articles shall .be deemed to confer on a High Court powers
of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any
law relating to the Armed Forces.
4. 10. Subordinate of Assistant Sessions Judges-(1) All Assistant Session G
Judges shall be subrodinate to the Sessions Judge in whose Court they
exercise jurisdiction.
15. Subordination of Judicial Magistrates-(1) Every Chief Judicial Magistrate
shall be subordinate to the. Session Judge and every other Judicial
Magistrate shal, subject to the general control of the Session Judge, be
subordinate to the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
H
606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 1 S.C.R.

A offences mentioned in Section ,195(1 ). Such offences are
relatable to civil, criminal and re~nue courts etc. 5 Each one of
the streams of these courts may have their administrative
hierarchy depending upon under the law by which such courts
are brought into existence. It is also well known that certain
B courts have appellate jurisdiction while certain courts only have
otiginal jurisdiction. Appellate jurisdiction is the creature of
statute and depending upon the scheme of a particular statute,
the forum of appeal varies. Generally, the appellate for a are
created on the basis of either subject matter of dispute or
c economic implications or nature of crime etc.

25. Therefore, all that sub-section (4) of Section 195 says
is that irrespective of the fact whether a particular court is
subordinate to another court in the hierarchy of judicial
administration, for the purpose of exercise of powers under
D Section 195(1), every appellate court competent to entertain
the appeals either from decrees or sentence passed by the
original court is treated to be a court concurrently competent
to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 195(1). High Courts
being constitutional courts invested with the powers of
E superintendence over all courts within the territory over which
the High Court exercises its jurisdiction, in our view, is certainly
a Court which can exercise the jurisdiction under Section
195(1). In the absence of any specific constitutional limitation
of prescription on the exercise of such powers, the High Courts
F may exercise such power either on an application made to it
or suo moto whenever the interests of justice demand.

26. The High Courts not only have the authority to exercise
such jurisdiction but also an obligation to exercise such power
G in appropriate cases. Such obligation, in our opinion, flows from
two factors - (1) the embargo created by Section 195
restricting the liberty of aggrieved persons to initiate criminal
5: 195 (3)-ln clause (b) of sub-section (1), the term 'Court' means a Civil,
Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by a or under
a Central, Provinical or State Act, if declared by that Act to be a Court for the
H purposes of this section.
PERUMAL v. JANAK! [J. CHELAMESWAR, J.] 607

proceedings with respect to offences prescribed under Section A
195; (2) such offences pertain to either the contempt of lawful
authorities of public servants or offences against public justice.

27. A constitution Bench of this Court in Iqbal Singh
Marwah & Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr., (2005) 4 SCC
B
370, while interpreting Section 195 Cr.P.C., although in a
different context, held that any interpretation which leads to a
situation where a victim of crime is rendered remediless, has
to be discarded6 • The power of superintendence like any other
6. 23. In view of the language used in Section 340 Cr.P.C. the Court is not C
bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred
to in Section referred to in Section 195(1)(b), as the Section is conditioned
by the words 'Court is of opinion that it is expedient in -the interest of justice."
This shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice
requires and not in every case. Before filing of the complaint, the Court
may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is
expedient in the interest$ of justice that enquiry should be made into any D
of the offences referred to in Section 195(i)(b). This expediency will normally
be judged by the Court by weighing not the magnitude of injury suffered by
the person affected by such forgery or forged document, but having regard
to ·the effect or. impact, such commission of offence has upon administrative
injury to a person in the sense that it may deprive him of a very valuable
property or status or the like, but such document may be just a piece of
evidence produced or given in evidence in Court, where voluminous E
evidence may have been adduced and the effect of such piece of evidence
on the broad concept of administration of justice may be minimal. .In such
cricumstances, the Court may not consider it expedient in the interest of
justice to make a complaint. The broad view of clause (b)(ii), as canvassed
by learned counsel for the appellants, would render the victim of such forgery
or forged document remedyless. Any interpretation which leads to a
situation where a victim of a crime is rendered remedyless, has to be F
discarded.
25. An enlarged interpretation to Section 195(1)(b)(ii), whereby the bar created
by ,the said provision would also operate where after commission of an
act of forgery the doucmentis subsequently produced in Court, is capable
of great misuse. As pointed out in Sachida Nand Singh, after preparing a
forged document or committing an act of forgery, a person may manage .to
get a proceeding instituted in any civil, criminal or revenue court, either by G
himself or though someone set up by him and simply file the document. in
the said proceeding. He would thus be protected from prosecution, either
at it instance of a private party or the police until the Court, where the
doucment has been filed, itself chooses to file a complaint. The litigation
may be a prolonged one due. to which the acutal trial of such a person
may be delayed indefinitely. Such an interpretation would he highly
detrimental to the interest of soceity at large. H
608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 1 S.C.R.

A power impliedly carries an obligation to exercise powers in an
appropriate case to maintain the majesty of the judicial process
and the purity of the legal system. Such an obligation becomes
more profound when these allegations of commission of
offences pertain to public justice.
8
28. In the case on hand, when the appellant alleges that
he had been prosecuted on the basis of a palpably false
statement coupled with the further allegation in his complaint
that the respondent did so for extraneous considerations, we
C are of the opinion that it is an appropriate case where the High
Court ought to have exercised the jurisdiction under Section
195 Cr.P.C .. The allegation such as the one made by the
complainant against the respondent is not uncommon. As was
pointed earlier by this Court in a different context "there is no
rule of law that common sense should be put in cold storage"7•
D Our Constitution is designed on the theory of checks and
balances. A theory which is the product of the belief that all
power corrupts - such belief is based on experience.
29. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The matter is
E remitted to the High Court for further appropriate course of
action to initiate proceedings against the respondent on the
basis of the complaint of the appellant in accordance with law.

D.G. Appeal allowed.

7. Para 63 of Prakash Chandra Mehta v. Commissioner and Secretary,
Government of Kerafa & Ors., 1985 (Supp.) SCC 144.