Recently, the division bench of the Supreme Court compring Justices B R Gavai and J B Pardiwala held that threating a person to withdraw his/her withdraw complaint /FIR or settle the dispute would not attract Section 195A.

Section 195A makes it very clear that false evidence means false evidence before the Court of law.\

In the said matter, the accused threatened and pressurised the informant to withdraw her first FIR registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376D, 323, 120B, 354A and 452 resply of the IPC.

The accused filed petition in Allahbad High Court seeking quashing of FIR was dismissed.

The division bench of the Supreme Court, noted that Section 195A of the IPC deals with the offense of giving or fabricating false evidence with the intent to procure a conviction or acquittal in Court.

This section also includes instances where someone is threatened to give false evidence. If someone is threatened with injury to their person, reputation, or property, and those threats are intended to make them give false evidence, it would constitute an offense under this section.

However, it said that there is nothing to indicate that the accused persons threatened the first informant with intent that the first informant gives false evidence before the Court of law.

"The later part of Section 195A makes it very clear that false evidence means false evidence before the Court of law. On such false evidence if a person is convicted and sentenced, then the person found guilty of administering threats would be liable to be punished with the same punishment and sentence in the same manner and to the same extent as such innocent person is punished and sentenced. The word “false” in Section 195A should be read in the context with what has been explained in Section 191 of the IPC which falls in Chapter XI – of False Evidence and Offences Against Public Justice. Thus, even if we believe the allegations levelled in the FIR to be true, none of the ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 195A are disclosed. To give threat to a person to withdraw a complaint or FIR or settle the dispute would not attract Section 195A of the IPC.", the court added.

Referring to Section 386 IPC, it said:

"One of the necessary ingredients of the offence of extortion is that the victim must be induced to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, etc. That is to say, the delivery of the property must be with consent which has been obtained by putting the person in fear of any injury. In contrast to theft, in extortion there is an element of consent, of course, obtained by putting the victim in fear of injury. In extortion, the will of the victim has to be overpowered by putting him or her in fear of injury. Forcibly taking any property will not come under this definition. It has to be shown that the person was induced to part with the property by putting him in fear of injury."