In a recent judgement, the Supreme Court discussed the ingredients of the offense of using threats to procure false evidence and quashed the FIR which did not indicate the ingredients of the offense.

The Supreme Court of India examined the applicability of Section 195A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in a case involving threats to withdraw a complaint or settle a dispute. The court emphasized the necessity of meeting the essential elements of the offense under this section and discussed related legal concepts.

Section 195A of the IPC deals with threats or inducement to procure false evidence. It allows a witness or any individual to file a complaint if they receive threats intended to compel them to provide false testimony in court proceedings.

Legal Analysis: The court noted that for Section 195A to apply, the threats must be aimed at making the person offer false evidence before the court. The complainant needs to lodge the complaint before the court where the evidence is being recorded.

Extortion and Consent: The judgment also delved into the legal aspects of extortion as per Section 386 of the IPC. Extortion involves inducing someone to deliver property or valuable security through fear of injury. Consent plays a crucial role here, as the property transfer must occur due to the victim’s fear of harm.

Quashing Criteria: The court referred to established legal principles for quashing FIRs, including the case of Bhajan Lal. Parameters were outlined, including situations where the allegations are absurd, inherently improbable, or filed with malicious intent.

Importance of Careful Examination: The court stressed the importance of scrutinizing cases involving malicious intent, such as personal vengeance. It emphasized that while assessing the FIR, courts should consider not only the averments but also the overall circumstances and materials collected during the investigation.

Conclusion: In this judgment, the Supreme Court examined the requirements of Section 195A of the IPC and discussed the significance of consent in cases of extortion. The court also highlighted the need for a comprehensive review of cases involving malicious intent. As a result of this analysis, the court quashed the FIR under Section 195A in question, emphasizing that its observations pertain exclusively to the specific case at hand.

SALIB @ SHALU @ SALIM …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
decided by the Supreme Court on August 8, 2023.

By aor.sanjivnarang@gmail.com

Sanjiv Narang Adv. is an Advocate on Record in the Supreme Court of India. His qualifications include an LLB from University of Delhi and a Masters degree in Personnel Management from Panjab University,Chandigarh.In his more than 3 decades of experience, he has practiced law at the District, High Court and Supreme Court levels.He also has more than a decade of experience in the field of Management. He is the author of two books namely Laws for Women in India and Innovation, Why What and How.