Question

"Provisions of S.195 of the Code are mandatory and non-compliance of it would vitiate the prosecution and all other consequential orders". In which case the court upheld so

• A. C. Muniappan v. State of Tamilnadu
• B. Kishun Singh v. State of Bihar
• C. State of Karnataka v. Pastor P. Raju
• D. None of the above

Hint:

Remember S.195 CrPC as a jurisdictional bar. If the offence falls under S.195, the court's power to even hear the case is dependent on a proper complaint from the specified authority. A police report (challan) is not sufficient.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
Section 195 of the CrPC creates a bar on the court's power to take cognizance of certain offences except on the written complaint of the concerned public servant or the court. These offences typically relate to contempt of the lawful authority of public servants, giving false evidence, and offences against public justice. The question asks for a landmark case that affirmed the mandatory nature of this provision.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The purpose of Section 195 CrPC is to prevent vexatious and private prosecution for certain offences which are primarily against public justice or the authority of public servants. It acts as a filter. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that this provision is not merely procedural but creates a substantive bar on the court's jurisdiction. In the case of C. Muniappan & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 9 SCC 567, the Supreme Court emphatically held that the provisions of Section 195 of the CrPC are mandatory. The Court ruled that a court cannot take cognizance of any of the offences mentioned therein unless there is a written complaint by the public servant concerned as required by the said section. Non-compliance with this mandatory requirement would render the entire prosecution illegal and void from its inception (\textit{ab initio}). The court stated that the lack of such a complaint is a non-curable defect and it would vitiate the entire proceedings.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The mandatory nature of Section 195 CrPC was strongly upheld in C. Muniappan v. State of Tamilnadu.