CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus M. SIVAMANI
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 509, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 509 
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 
A 
v 
M. SIVAMANI 
(Criminal Appeal Nos.1261-1262 of2017) 
AUGUSTOl,2017 
B 
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.J 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.195(l)(a)(i) - Bar 
under - On a challenge by insurer against the award passed in 
insurance claim petition, High Court ordered investigation by CBI 
C 
into allegation that claim was false - After investigation. CBI filed 
charge sheet -
Respondent filed petition pleading bar 
u/s.[95(l)(a)(i) on the ground that cognizance in respect of offence 
uls.182 /PC could not be taken except "on the complaint in writing 
of public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom 
he is administratively subordinate - Trial court dismissed the petition 
D 
- On revision, High Court reversed the order of trial court - On 
appeal. held: The direction of the High Court is at par with the 
direction of an administrative superior public servant to file a 
complaint in writing in terms of the statutory requirement - The 
protection intended by s.195 against a private person filing a 
E 
frivolous complaint is taken care of when the High Court finds that 
the matter was required to be gone into in public interest - Such 
direction cannot be rendered futile by invoking s.195 to such a 
situation - Once the High Court directs investigation into a specified 
offence mentioned in s.195, bar under s.195(/)(a) cannot be 
pressed into service - Penal Code, 1860 - s.182. 
F
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : While the bar against cognizance of a specified 
offence is mandatory, the same has to be understood in the context 
of the purpose for which such a bar is created. The bar is not 
intended to take away remedy against a crime but only to protect 
G 
an innocent person against false or frivolous proceedings by a 
private person~ The expression "the public servant or his 
administrative superior" cannot exclude the High Court. It is 
clearly implicit in the direction of the High Court that it was 
H 
509
510 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 
A necessary in the interest of justice to take cognizance of the 
offence in question. Direction of the High Court is at par with 
the direction of an administrative superior public servant to file a 
complaint in writing in terms of the statutory requirement. The 
protection intended by the Section against a private person filing 
B a frivolous complaint is taken care of when the High Court finds 
that the matter was required to be gone into in public interest. 
Such direction cannot be rendered futile by invoking Section 195 
to such a situation. Once the High Court directs investigation 
into a specified offence mentioned in Section 195, bar under 
Section 195(l)(a) cannot be pressed into service. The view taken 
C 
by the High Court will frustrate the object of law and cannot be 
sustained. [Para 11) [516-E-H; 517-A) 
State of U.P. v. Mata Bhikh (1994) 4 SCC 95 : [1994( 2 
SCR 368; Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah 
(2005) 4 SCC 370 : [2005) 2 SCR 708; Peruma! v. 
D 
Janakai (2014) 5 SCC 377 : [2014) 1 SCR 591; M.S. 
E 
F 
Ah!awat v. State of Haryana (2000) 1 SCC 278 : [1999] 
4 Suppl. SCR 160 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
[1994( 2 SCR 368 
referred to 
Paras 
[2005) 2 SCR 708 
referred to 
Para 9 
[2014) 1 SCR 591 
referred to 
Para 9 
[1999) 4 Suppl. SCR 160 
referred to 
Para 10 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
Nos. 1261-1262 of2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.10.2015 of the High
Court 
of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Revision Case No. 2 of 2009 and 
G 
M. P. No. 1 of2009. 
H 
Ms.Pinky Anand, ASG, Kailesh Vasudev, Sr. Adv., Ms.Alka 
Agrawal, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Hemant Arya, Advs. for the 
Appellant.
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. M. SIVAMANI 
511 
Basant R., Sr. Adv. Senthil Jagadeesan, Ms. Shruti Iyer, Karthik A 
Ashok, ArunAnbumani, Advs. for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. These appeals have been 
preferred against Order dated 16'" October, 2015 of the High Court of 
judicature at Madras in Criminal Revision Case No.2 of2009 and M.P. 
B 
No.1 of 2009. The High Court has quashed the proceedings against the 
respondent in C.C. No.15 of2007 pending before the Additional Special 
Judge for CBI cases, Chennai. 
2. Facts stated in the charge sheet filed by the appellant-CBI 
against the respondent are that a claim petition was filed before the 
C 
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Cuddalore seeking 
compensation of Rs.22,00,000/- for death of Mohamed Farooque in a 
road accident on 11 m October, 2002. The MACT partly upheld the 
claim and awarded Rs.14,97,000/-. On appeal of the National Insurance 
Company (Insurance Company), the Madras High Court ordered 
D 
investigation by CBCID into the allegation that the claim was false. 
After investigation, the CBCID filed charge sheet: The matter was 
later taken over by CBI under the directions of the Madras High Court 
which led the CBI to file the impugned -charge sheet under Sections 
120-B r/w 182, 420, 468, 468 r/w 471 !PC and 13(2) r/w 13(i)(d) of 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w 511 IPC against A 1 to A9. The 
E 
respondent is A-5. According to the CBI,
the Insurance Company was 
cheated by A-1 by making false claim in connivance with the other 
accused. Mohamed Farooque sustained injuries by falling on his own 
from a scooter and not in accident as alleged. Different accused were 
given different roles in conspiracy. The role given to the respondent, 
who is an advocate, is of misrepresentation and producing false evidence, 
knowing the true facts. 
F 
3. During pendency of proceedings on the charge sheet, the 
respondent moved a petition pleading barunder Section 195(1 )(a)(i) CrPC 
by submitting that cognizance in respect of offence under Section 182 
G 
IPC could not be taken except "on the complaint in writing of the public 
servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is 
administratively subordinate." Charge sheet by CBI was not such a 
complaint. The trial court dismissed the petition. 
H
512 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 
4. On a revision before the High Court, the High Court reversed 
the order of the trial court. It was held: 
" .... Since Section 182, IPC is found in the final report, a 
complaint in writing from the competent authority is very much 
essential and no deviation can be taken. Further. in Section 
J95(J)(a)(iii), it is mentioned that if there is any criminal 
conspiracy to commit such offence, complaint in writing by 
the competent authority is necessary. Jn the instant case, in 
the final report, it has been clearly stated that all accused 
have contrived themselves and agreed to perform the said 
act. Further. since the accused have been facing a charge 
under Section 120-B, JPC, the Court can very well come to a 
conclusion that each accused is having vicarious liability. 
Under the said circumstances, the defence taken on the side 
of the respondent is sans merit. it has already been pointed 
out that in respect of the offences mentioned in Section 
195(J)(a)(i), a complaint in writing is very much essential. 
Further. as stated supra, in the instant case, Section 120-B is 
also available. Under the said circumstances also, a written 
complaint is very much essential as per the provisions of 
Section l 95(l)(a)(i) and (iii) of O:P.C. The Court below has 
given a finding to the effect that the High Court has directed 
the CBI to conduct investigation and.file a final report and 
the same has been done. It is
pertinent to note that the order 
passed by the High Court is not at all sufficient to flout/bypass 
the mandatory provision of Section 195, O:P.C. Under such 
circumstances, the contentions put forth on the side of the 
respondent are not having any substance. ft has already been 
discussed in detail that the reasons given by the Court-below 
for dismissing the present petition are totalty against the 
existing law and the same can be eschewed. " 
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 
G 
6. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that it was on account 
H 
of element of public interest that the High Court directed CBCID to look 
into the allegation relating to bogus claim. By a subsequent order dated 
I" March, 2006 in W.P. Nos.7389, 39956 and 39968 of2005, further 
direction was given to handover the matter to the CBI in following terms:
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. M. SIVAMANI 
513 
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.] 
"We are, however. re.faining from entering upon the details 
A 
lest it may likely to prejudice either party, but we think that 
since the accusations are directed mainly against the local 
police officials, it is desirable to entrust the investigation of 
the matter to an independent agency like the CBI so that all 
concerned including the Insurance Companies may feel 
B 
assured that an independent agency is looking into the matter 
and that would lend the final outcome of the investigation 
credibility. M1'. Somayaji may be right in saying that the local 
police are canying out the investigation faitl?fi1lly, but the 
same will lack credibility, since the allegations are mainly 
against the Police Department. There.fore, in our opinion, it 
C 
would be advisable and desirable as well as in the interest of 
justice to entrust the investigation to the CBI forthwith in 
respect of the complaints filed by the National Insurance 
Company as well as other Insurance Companies. 
We accordingly direct that the CBI shall investigate into the 
D 
said complaints filed by the Insurance Companies as well as 
complaints relating to the use of.fake FIRs by different police 
stations. . .. ... . .. " 
In view ofabove, on correct interpretation of the provision, bar of 
Section 195 cannot apply in view of direction of the High Court. 
E 
The question is whether there is non-compliance of Section 
195( I )(a)(i)
Cr PC in court taking cognizance of the offence in 
question, i.e. Section 182 !PC. 
7. 'section 195(1) Cr PC is as follows: 
"195. Prosecution for contempt of lawfi1f 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 olJence, 
F 
G 
H
514 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
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, 
B 
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 
c 
under Section 471, Section 475 or Section 476, o.f the said 
Code, when such o.ffence 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, 
D 
or the abetment of, any o.ffence spec(fied in sub-clause (i) or 
sub-clause (ii}, 
E 
F 
G 
H 
except on the complaint in writing of that court, or of some 
other court to which that court is subordinate. " 
(Emphasis added) 
8. Contention raised on behalf of the appellant-CBI is that the 
object and purpose of the bar created under the law against taking 
cognizance in respect of the specified offences is to control frivolous or 
vexatious proceedings by private parties. In State of U.P. versus Mata 
Bhikh 1 it was observed : 
"6. The object of this section is to protect persons from being 
vexatiously prosecuted upon inadequate
materials or 
insufficient grounds by person actuated by malice or ill-will 
or frivolity of disposition at the instance of private individuals 
for the offences specified therein. The provisions of this 
section, no doubt, are mandatory and the Court has no 
jurisdiction to take cognizance of any of the o.ffences 
mentioned.Jherein unless there is a complaint in writing of 
'(1994).4 sec 95
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. M. SIVAMANI 
515 
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.] 
'the public servant concerned' as required by the section 
A 
without which the trial under Section I 88 of the Indian Penal 
Code becomes void ab initio. See Dau/at Ram v. State of 
Punjab [AIR I962 SCI206}. ......... " 
9. It is submitted that the scheme of the provision shows that the 
specified offences in respect of whom the bar is created have direct 
B 
impact on administration of public justice. As against a private party, it is 
only the public servant or his superior to whom he is administratively 
subordinate is permitted to file a complaint. Reliance has been placed 
on the judgment of this Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah versus Meenakshi 
Marwah2 laying down that interpretation of the provision which leads to 
a situation where victim of crime is rendered remediless has to be 
C 
discarded and interpretation should advance the object3• The Constitution 
Bench of this Court interpreted the barunder Section 195(l)(b )(ii) to be 
limited to a document where forgery was committed after it was 
produced or given in evidence before the court. 
It was held that if 
forgery was committed before the document was produced before the 
D 
court, the bar under the said provision was not applicable. In Per11mal 
versus Janakai4 it was held that bar under the provision will not apply 
if a High Court, as a superior court, directs a complaint to be filed in 
respect of offence covered by Section
!95(l)(b)(i). It was, thus, 
submitted that in the present case protection under Section l 95(l)(a)(i) 
cannot apply as it was not at the instance of any private party but at the 
E 
instance of the High Court that CBI investigation was directed to be 
conducted. "Other public servant to whom he is administratively 
subordinate" should not exclude the High Court. 
10. Learned counsel for the respondent however supported the 
view taken by the High Court. It was submitted that there was no 
reason to ignore the statutory bar against taking cognizance of an offence 
under Section 182 except on the complaint in writing of the public servant 
concerned or who is administrative superior to whom which expression 
could not include the High Court. It was submitted that though on failure 
F 
to perform a public duty, the public servant or his superior may be directed 
G 
by the High Court by a mandamus to file a complaint, direction of the 
High Court to conduct investigation was not enough to exclude the 
'(2005) 4 sec 310 
'Para 23 & 25. 
'(2014) 5 sec 377 
H
516 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 
A. statutory bar against taking of cognizance. Reliance has been placed on 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
M.S. Ahlawat versus State of Haryana5 laying down as follows: 
"5. Chapter XI IPC deals with 'false evidence and offences 
against public justice" and Section 19 3 occurring therein 
provides for punishment for giving or .fabricating false 
evidence in a judicial proceeding. Section 195 of the Criminal 
Procedure Code (CrPC) provides that where an act amounts 
to an offence of contempt of the lawful authority of public 
servants or to an offence against public justice such as giving 
false evidence under Section 193 /PC etc. or to an offence 
relating to documents actually used in a court, private 
prosecutions are barred absolutely and only the court in 
relation to which the offence was committed may initiate 
proceedings. Provisions of Section 195 CrPC are mandatory 
and no court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of any of 
the offences mentioned therein unless there is a complaint in 
writing as required under that section. It is settled law that 
every incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent 
upon the court to order prosecution, but (sic) to exercise 
judicial discretion to order prosecution only in the larger 
interest of the administration of justice. " 
11. We have considered the rival submissions. We find merit in 
the contention raised on behalf of the appellant. While the bar against 
cognizance of a specified
offence is mandatory, the same has to be 
understood in the context of the purpose for which such a bar is created. 
The bar is not intended to take away remedy against a crime but only to 
protect an innocent person against false or frivolous proceedings by a 
private person. The expression "the public servant or his administrative 
superior" cannot exclude the High Court. It is clearly implicit in the 
direction of the High Court quoted above that it was necessary in the 
interest of justice to take cognizance of the offence in question. Direction 
of the High Court is at par with the direction of an administrative superior 
G 
public servant to file a complaint in writing in terms of the statutory 
requirement. The protection intended by the Section against a private 
person filing a frivolous complaint is taken care of when the High Court 
finds that the matter was required to be gone into in public interest. 
H 
'(2000) 1 sec 278
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. M. SIVAMANI 
517 
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.] 
Such direction cannot be rendered futile by invoking Section 195 to such 
A 
a situation. Once the High Court directs investigation into a specified 
offence mentioned in Section 195, bar under Section 195(l)(a) cannot 
be pressed into service. The view taken by the High Court will frustrate 
the object oflaw and cannot be sustained. 
12. Accordingly, we allow these appeals and set aside the impugned 
B 
order. Since the matters have been hanging in fire for the last more than 
15 years, it will be in the interest of justice that the proceedings are 
concluded as far as possible within six months. 
Devika Gujral 
Appeols allowed.