Rajkumar Madki Vs Dr. Shailendra Beldale on 16 Oct 2026

Posted on October 20 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of the Apex Court held that a private complaint is maintainable against a lying public servant in the nomination form contains false statements.

From Para 4,

4. A substantial question of law of general public importance, hitherto undecided by this Court, does arise for our consideration. It is:
Whether Section 125-A of the RoP Act should pass muster the rigours of Section 195(1) of the Cr. PC? In other words, whether any private person can file a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr. PC against a returned candidate for an offence punishable under Section 125-A of the RoP Act?

From Para 11,

11. It is significant to note that sub-clauses (i) to (iii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 195(1) of the Cr. PC impose a statutory prohibition on a court in relation to taking cognisance of offences punishable under Sections 172 to 188, IPC or of abetment of/attempt to/criminal conspiracy to commit such offences, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. It is plain that the text of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 does not include Section 125-A of the RoP Act. Should we read into Section 195, Cr. PC a prohibition in respect of Section 125-A of the RoP Act also, apart from those expressly included? If indeed it were the intention of the legislature that cognizance of any offence relating to furnishing of false information by a candidate in an affidavit with intent of being elected in an election (referred to in Section 125-A of the RoP Act) could only be taken if the complainant were a public servant, the same could have been provided by an amendment of Section 195, Cr. PC since Section 125-A of the RoP Act is of fairly recent origin. Significantly, Section 125-A was inserted in the RoP Act with effect from 24th August, 2002, while it is noticed that Section 195, Cr. PC suffered an amendment thereafter in April, 2006. The legislature is presumed to be conscious of its insertion of Section 125-A in the RoP Act four years back. It stands to reason that omission of the legislature to include Section 125-A of the RoP Act in Section 195, Cr. PC is deliberate and no court, in terms of the latter provision, would be barred from taking cognizance of an alleged offence under Section 125-A of the RoP Act, even on the complaint lodged by a private person. This interpretation is also fortified by the absence of any provision in any enactment stipulating that a complaint in relation to an offence under Section 125-A of the RoP Act can only be lodged by a public servant as well as the ordainment in Section 125-A that the penalty it envisages is “notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force”. This means that the rigour of Section 195, Cr. PC would not be applicable insofar as a complaint lodged by a private person, alleging an offence under Section 125-A of the RoP Act, under Section 200, Cr. PC, is concerned, whereby the court is urged to penalise the offender for furnishing false information in an affidavit to get elected. The High Court was, therefore, clearly in error in returning the finding that it did.

From Para 13,

13. In conclusion, we hold that a private complaint alleging offence committed under Section 125-A, RoP Act need not pass muster of the rigours of Section 195, Cr. PC, as held by the High Court. If at all a complaint is lodged to harass an elected candidate or frivolous allegations are levelled therein, the laws of the country duly equip and empower the competent magistrates to pass such order(s) as they deem fit and proper commensurate with the facts and circumstances of each case.

Rajkumar Madki Vs Dr. Shailendra Beldale on 16 Oct 2026

Citations:

Other Sources:

Ann Saurabh Dutt Vs Lieutenant Colonel Saurabh Iqbal Bahadur Dutt on 12 May 2026 – Judgement Summary

Posted on May 18 by Suprajaa Rajan

The Supreme Court of India in Ann Saurabh Dutt Vs Lieutenant Colonel Saurabh Iqbal Bahadur Dutt, held that a professionally qualified woman cannot be branded “cruel” or accused of “desertion” merely because she chooses to pursue her career and create a safe environment for her child.

Allowing the appeal in part, the Supreme Court strongly criticised the reasoning adopted by the Family Court and the High Court, describing it as “pedantic,” “regressive,” “ultra-conservative,” and rooted in patriarchal assumptions. The Court held that a woman’s professional identity, autonomy, and decision to balance career with motherhood cannot be construed as matrimonial misconduct.

“3. We are well into the 21st Century, and yet an attempt by a qualified woman to pursue her professional career and to secure a safe and stable environment for the upbringing of her child has been treated as an act of cruelty and desertion by the Courts below.”
“4. The reasoning which permeates the impugned judgments appears to be founded upon deeply entrenched archaic societal assumptions that a wife’s professional identity is subject to an implied spousal veto;…”
“22. Merely because the wife decided to reside at Ahmedabad with the primary intention to provide a safer environment and better health care to her daughter… branding such conduct as constituting cruelty or desertion was atrocious to say the least.”
“26. The expectation that the wife could not even think of pursuing her career in Dentistry, is indicative of regressive and feudalistic mindset.”
“29. We are convinced that he has an attitude of domineering and control, which must have been the probable cause for the appellant taking the steps for gaining independence and pursuing her career goals.”

Decision of the Court

Accordingly, the Supreme Court passed the following directions:

In the wife’s appeal

Findings of cruelty and desertion under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 were expunged and set aside.
The decree of divorce was not disturbed, considering the respondent had remarried and the wife did not seek restoration of marriage.
The divorce decree was directed to be treated as one passed on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

In the husband’s petition

The husband’s plea seeking prosecution of the wife for perjury under Section 195 CrPC [Section 379 BNSS] read with Section 340 CrPC was rejected.
The Court found the petition motivated by personal vendetta and lacking legal merit.

Thus, the wife’s appeal was partly allowed, while the husband’s special leave petition was dismissed.

Ann Saurabh Dutt Vs Lieutenant Colonel Saurabh Iqbal on 12 May 2026

Citation : 2026 INSC 475

Other Sources :

Index of Divorce Judgments is here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Umme Farva Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 14 Jan 2026

Posted on January 31 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Allahabad High Court held as follows,

From Para 14,

14. In this case, the Investigating Officer, investigated the matter and found that, no case has been made out against the wife/accused-applicant under Sections 504 and 507 I.P.C., and thereafter, he prepared the police report/final report (closure report) on 19.06.2024 under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. (Corresponding Section 193(3) BNSS) and submitted the report in the court of Magistrate, without a written complaint of offence committed under Section 177 and 182 IPC (Corresponding Section 212 and 217 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) in respect of furnishing false information, as provided under Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. (Corresponding Section 215(1)(a) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).

From Para 15,

15. Sections 177 and 182 IPC (Corresponding to sections 212 and 217 of B.N.S.) cannot be made redundant, that is to say that, in case any false information is furnished with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to injury of another person, the Investigating Officer shall also prepare a police report in form of complaint as provided/required under Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 215(1)(a) BNSS). Thus, giving a false information to police to lodge an F.I.R. or N.C.R. attracts offence provided under Section 177 and 182 IPC (corresponding Section 212 and 217 BNS) and if after investigation, the Investigating Officer finds that no such incident occurred as alleged in the F.I.R. or N.C.R., the Investigating Officer is under statutory obligation, not only to submit a final report/closure report but also to submit a report of offence of Section 177 and 182 IPC (corresponding Section 212 and 217 BNS) in form of complaint as provided, under Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 215(1)(a) of BNSS) for taking cognizance. Otherwise, the concerned police officers are liable for committing an offence as mentioned under Section 199 (b) BNS (corresponding Section 166A(b) of Cr.P.C.).

From Para 18,

18. The offence is always against the State therefore, if the Investigating Officer is submitting police report/final report(closure report) under section 193(3) BNSS (corresponding Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.), he shall also submit police report in form of written complaint under section 212 and 217 BNS (Corresponding Sections 177 and 182 IPC), against the informant and witnesses. The format of police report, in form of written complaint under section 212 and 217 BNS (Corresponding Sections 177 and 182 IPC) as provided under Section 215(1)(a) BNSS (Corresponding Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C.), in case of false information, to police to use his lawful power to injury any person, in Hindi language as well as in English language are delineated below.

From Para 21,

21. In case of false first information report, if a written complaint against the informant and witness under section 215(1)(a) BNSS (corresponding section 195(1) (a) Cr.P.C.) is not filed by the Investigating Officer, under section 212 and 217 BNS (corresponding section 177 and 182 of I.P.C.) for giving false information to the police then it will amount that the Investigating Officer, Station House Officer, Circle Officer of the area and the prosecuting officer concerned are not discharging their official duty and liable to departmental proceedings as well as contempt proceedings.

Umme Farva Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 14 Jan 2026

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index

Zaid Pathan and Ors Vs State of M.P. on 22 Dec 2020

Posted on January 9, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Even though the MP High Court held the law point correctly, IMHO, the said FIR which was saved by this Court, has no future, unless it was treated as a FIR registered u/s 154 CrPC, which is what the case is here.

From Para 15 16

15/ The submission of counsel for the petitioners is that as per the procedure prescribed in Section 195 of the Cr.P.C., for the purpose of the offence under Section 188 of the IPC a public servant is required to file a complaint before the competent court and, therefore, the FIR cannot be registered.
16/ Such an argument advanced by counsel for the petitioners is devoid of any merit. A bare reading of Section 195(1) Cr.P.C. reveals that the provisions contained in the sub-section are attracted at the stage of taking cognizance. There is no bar under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. in respect of registration of FIR, therefore, FIR for an offence under Section 188 of the IPC can be registered by the police and after investigation on the basis of the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, a competent public servant can file the complaint before the concerned court. What is barred under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. is that after investigating the offence under Section 188 of the IPC, the police officer cannot file a final report in the Court and the Court cannot take cognizance on that final report, as at that stage the bar contained in Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. comes
into operation.

Zaid Pathan and Ors Vs State of M.P. on 22 Dec 2020

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/zaid-pathan-and-others-vs-state-of-m-p

CrPC 195 – Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence

Posted on April 27, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Under section 195 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), various provisions are provided to prosecute offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.

Section 195 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973

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-

(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), or

(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or

(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence,

except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;

(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 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or

(ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or

(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub- clause (i) or sub- clause (ii),

except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.

(2) Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under clause (a) of sub- section (1) any authority to which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court; and upon its receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint: Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded.

(3) In clause (b) of sub- section (1), the term” Court” means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of this section.

(4) For the purposes of clause (b) of sub- section (1), a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in the case of a Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such Civil Court in situate:

Provided that-

(a) where appeals lie to more than one Court, the Appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the Court to which such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate;

(b) where appeals lie to a Civil and also to a Revenue Court, such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Civil or Revenue Court according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed.

Read the procedure to be followed to prosecute Perjury offences here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: CrPC 195 – Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants or for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence

Rajkumar Madki Vs Dr. Shailendra Beldale on 16 Oct 2026

Ann Saurabh Dutt Vs Lieutenant Colonel Saurabh Iqbal Bahadur Dutt on 12 May 2026 – Judgement Summary

Decision of the Court

In the wife’s appeal

In the husband’s petition

Umme Farva Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 14 Jan 2026

Zaid Pathan and Ors Vs State of M.P. on 22 Dec 2020

CrPC 195 – Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence