HC Quashes Section 195A Charge Against Lawyer, Cautions Against Courtroom Presence
The Madras High Court has ruled that threatening a witness to refrain from testifying does not amount to threatening them to give false evidence under Section 195A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Justice P Velmurugan made this observation while allowing a plea filed by a lawyer challenging the addition of a Section 195A charge to a criminal case lodged against him for allegedly intimidating a witness.
“A reading of the FIR and the statement recorded from the 2nd respondent (witness) shows that the 2nd respondent has only made complaint before the 1st respondent (Police) stating that … the petitioner threatened him not to enter into the Court premises with Advocate’s Coat and not to give any evidence and if he gives any evidence, he would take away his life and nowhere either in the complaint or in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the 2nd respondent has stated that the petitioner threatened him to give false evidence … this Court finds that no ingredients to attract Section 195A IPC is made out,” the High Court stated.
Background of the Case
The case originates from a 2015 incident where 75 lawyers had gathered outside the residence of then Madras High Court Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul to demand a bail hearing for a fellow advocate. The protest allegedly turned violent, leading to trespassing and police intervention. A criminal trial ensued, which ended in 2024 with all accused lawyers receiving an admonition.
While the case was pending in 2016, one of the accused lawyers allegedly threatened a fellow advocate against testifying. The witness filed a complaint, and the lawyer was charged under:
- Section 341 (wrongful restraint)
- Section 24(b) (definition of dishonesty)
- Section 323 (hurt)
- Section 506(1) (criminal intimidation)
In 2023, the witness sought the addition of a Section 195A charge (threatening to give false evidence), which was allowed by the trial court in August 2024. Aggrieved, the accused lawyer challenged this order before the High Court.
High Court’s Decision
On February 13, 2025, the High Court set aside the trial court’s order, ruling that Section 195A IPC was not applicable. However, the Court also imposed strict conditions on the accused lawyer:
- He cannot enter the trial courtroom during proceedings.
- He must attend hearings via video conferencing.
- Only his counsel is permitted inside the courtroom.
Additionally, the Court directed the Magistrate to file a report with the Bar Council of India (BCI) if the lawyer fails to comply, which could lead to cancellation of his enrollment.
Further, the Court ordered police protection for the witness to ensure his safety.
The case was argued by Advocates C Suraj and A Ashwin Kumar for the petitioner, Additional Public Prosecutor S Sugendran for the State, and Advocate K Murugesan for the witness.
Case: James vs State and anr. – Available on LAWFYI.IO
