Supreme Court: Accused in a private complaint case need not apply for anticipatory bail, unless a non-bailable warrant is issued by trial court

Anticipatory bail — Maintainability of in private complaint cases - Legality of — Held, Court may reject anticipatory bail but has no jurisdiction to direct surrender of accused — Further held, accused in a private complaint case need not pray for anticipatory bail, unless a non-bailable warrant is issued by that Court along with the summons  In the Supreme Court of India

(Before J.B. Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.)

Om Prakash Chhawnika alias Om Prakash 

Chabnika alias Om Prakash Chawnika 

Vs

State of Jharkhand and Another 

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 16221/2025 and ABA No. 2319/2025

Decided on April 23, 2026

Citation: 2026 SCC OnLine SC 676

Print Page

Jurisdictional Thresholds in Money Laundering Prosecutions: The Requirement of a Prior FIR

 I. Introduction

The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) serves as a specialized legislation aimed at combating the laundering of proceeds derived from criminal activity. A foundational principle of the PMLA is that the offence of money laundering (Section 3) is derivative—it relies on the existence of a "scheduled offence" (or predicate offence).

A critical legal question often arises in cases where the scheduled offence is not recorded via a First Information Report (FIR) by the police but is instead pursued through a private complaint filed by an individual before a Magistrate. This analysis examines whether the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) has the jurisdiction to register an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) and file a prosecution complaint under the PMLA based solely on a private complaint regarding a scheduled offence, absent any police FIR or complaint by an authorized investigating agency.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

II. The Legal Issue

Print Page

Whether Private Complaint Is Maintainable If Forgery Took Place Outside Court Before Producing Document As Evidence?

  The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in IQBAL SINGH MARWAH AND ANOTHERS V. MEENAKSHI MARWAH AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2005 SC 2119, wherein it is categorically held that for attracting Section 195(1)(b)(ii), offences enumerated in Section must be committed during time document was in custodia legis and Section 195 is not penal provision. The rule of strict construction does not apply including documents forged prior to their submission in Court and Section 195 would render victim of offence remedyless. The Apex Court also considering the similar allegations and exercising the powers in paragraph Nos.25 and 26 has discussed with regard to Section 195(1)(b)(ii) which reads as hereunder:

“25. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the opinion that Sachida Nand Singh has been correctly decided and the view taken therein is the correct view. Section 195(1)(b)(ii), Cr.P.C. would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provisions have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceedings in any Court i.e., during the time when the document was in custodia legis.

26. In the present case, the Will has been produced in the Court subsequently. It is nobody’s case that any offence as enumerated in Section 195(b)(ii) was committed in respect to the said Will after it had been produced or filed in the Court of District Judge. Therefore, the bar created by Section 195(1)(b)(ii), Cr.P.C. would not come into play and there is no embargo on the power of the Court to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of the complaint filed by the respondents. The view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court is perfectly correct and calls for no interference.” {Para 15}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU  CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.692/2019; 

 

NARENDRA PRASAD P. v. N. SUJATHA AND ANR.

BEFORE  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

Dated:11 MARCH, 2022

Print Page

Whether private complaint is barred as per S 195 of CRPC if a party has filed the forged documents in the court proceeding?

 In view of the discussion made above, we are of the opinion that Sachida Nand Singh has been correctly decided and the view taken therein is the correct view. Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis.

26. In the present case, the will has been produced in the Court subsequently. It is nobody's case that any offence as enumerated in Section 195(b)(ii) was committed in respect to the said will after it had been produced or filed in the Court of District Judge. Therefore, the bar created by Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. would not come into play and there is no embargo on the power of the Court to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of the complaint filed by the respondents. The view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court is perfectly correct and calls for no interference.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 402 of 2005 

Decided On: 11.03.2005

Iqbal Singh Marwah  Vs Meenakshi Marwah 

Print Page

Whether magistrate should take accused in custody when he appears in private complaint case?

 In another decision of the
Allahabad High Court placed into service by the learned counsel for the
respondents in the case of Sardar Jaspal Singh Vs. State (Supra), it
was observed that in cases of private complaints, Magistrate should not
take opposite parties (accused) in custody under Section 309 (2), but,
should, in all cases where the parties concerned voluntarily appear, to
resort to Section 88 of Cr.P.C and require the parties concerned only to
furnish bonds with or without securities, for appearance or future dates
and where the opposite party of a complaint case resides at along
distance as in this case, the Magistrate should exempt personal
attendance of the opposite party of the complaint case and allow them to
appear through counsel under Section 205 of Cr.P.C.
17 In the light of the aforesaid discussion and the provisions
under Sections 87 and 88 of Cr.P.C., and considering the fact that the
subject proceedings which are arisen out of a private complaint where the
process and the summons has been issued to the accused, I am of the

considered opinion that the orders were not violative of any statutory
provisions of law and that the judicial pronouncement relied upon by the
counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in this case and hence this
petition is required to be dismissed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.380 OF 2017

Gurram Narasimhaswami Siddidram  Vs  Dr.G. Harikishan

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

PRONOUNCED ON : JUNE 7 2019.

Print Page

Whether court can take cognizance of offence of giving false evidence punishable under S 193 of IPC on basis of private complaint?

 This Court in M.S. Ahlawat (supra) has clearly held that private complaints are absolutely barred in relation to an offence said to have been committed Under Section 193 Indian Penal Code and that the procedure prescribed Under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are mandatory. It was held that:

5. Chapter XI Indian Penal Code deals with "false evidence and offences against public justice" and Section 193 occurring therein provides for punishment for giving or fabricating false evidence in a judicial proceeding. Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (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 Indian Penal Code 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 Code of Criminal Procedure 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.

23. The case in hand squarely falls within the category of cases falling Under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the offence is punishable Under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the Magistrate has erred in taking cognizance of the offence on the basis of a private complaint. The High Court, in our view, has rightly set aside the order of the Magistrate.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 2019

Decided On: 04.02.2019

Narendra Kumar Srivastava Vs.  The State of Bihar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.K. Sikri and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.

Citation:(2019) 3 SCC 318

Print Page

Whether private complaint U/S 193 of IPC(false evidence in judicial proceeding) is maintainable?

 This Court in M.S. Ahlawat (supra) has clearly held that
private complaints are absolutely barred in relation to an offence
said to have been committed under Section 193 IPC and that the
procedure prescribed under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. are
mandatory. It was held that:
"5. Chapter XI IPC deals with “false evidence
and offences against public justice” and
Section 193 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 IPC 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.
The case in hand squarely falls within the category of cases
falling under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Cr.P.C. as the offence is
punishable under Section 193 of the IPC. Therefore, the
Magistrate has erred in taking cognizance of the offence on the
basis of a private complaint. 

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 211 OF 2019

SH. NARENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs THE STATE OF BIHAR 

S.ABDUL NAZEER, J.
Dated:February 04, 2019.

Print Page

Whether magistrate should call say of accused prior to issue of process against him?

 Going   through   the   material   available   on
record,   it   appears   that   the   Magistrate   committed
an   error   when   at   the   stage   of   considering   the
private   complaint,   under   Section   200   of   Cr.P.C.,
after recording verification instead of resorting
to any of the options provided under Section 200
read with  Section 202 of Cr.P.C., the Magistrate

issued notice calling upon the accused to say as
to why he should not be prosecuted.

IN  THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.54 OF 2011


Santoshkumar Ghisulal Jaju, Vs         The State of Maharashtra,

              CORAM:   A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.
              DATE :   25TH JANUARY, 2016
Citation;2016 ALLMR(CRI)1283

Print Page

Whether Magistrate is justified in refusing to amalgamate private complaint and police challan filed in respect of same offence?

All the accused filed an application before the trial Court that both the complaint case and the Challan of the Police should be tried together. The Magistrate rejected this application against which the accused filed a revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, who has referred the case to the High Court.

I think the Magistrate is justified in holding an enquiry separately for two reasons:

First, that the inquiry in the complaint case will be held Under Section 203 of the Cr.PCode, whereas the inquiry in the case challaned by the Police will be held Under Section 207A of the Cr.PCode. The two procedures are different and if both the cases are amalgamated, the question will be under which of the two pncedures the inquiry should be held.

Two, in the event the accused are eventually tried and acquitted, the complainant will have a right of appeal Under Section 417 (3) of the Cr.PCode. Thus it is for good reasons that the inquiry is being held separately.

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Manphool And Ors. vs The State on 25 November, 1959

Equivalent citations: 1960 CriLJ 831,AIR1960MP177, 1960MPLJ312

Bench: A Khan

Print Page