Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 215
Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public
(1) No Court shall take cognizance—
(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 206 to 223 (both inclusive but excluding section 209) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; or
(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence; or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate or of some other public servant who is authorised by the concerned public servant so to do;
(b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, namely, sections 229 to 233 (both inclusive), 236, 237, 242 to 248 (both inclusive) and 267, 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 sub-section (1) of section 336, or punishable under sub-section (2) of section 340 or section 342 of the said Sanhita, when such offence 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, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii), except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.
Why this exists
This provision continues a rule going back to the Criminal Procedure Code of 1898 and later Section 195 of the CrPC, 1973. The idea is to prevent private citizens from launching harassing or vexatious prosecutions against public servants for actions taken in their official capacity, and to stop people from filing perjury or forgery complaints over every minor courtroom dispute. Instead, the decision to prosecute is left to the public servant or the court itself, who are better placed to judge whether the matter is serious enough to warrant criminal action. This protects officials and the judicial process from being misused as tools of personal vendetta.
How courts read it
Under the predecessor provision (Section 195 CrPC), the Supreme Court clarified its scope in several landmark rulings. In Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar (1998), the Court held that the bar on prosecuting forgery-related offences applies only when the forgery or fabrication happens after the document is produced in court, not to forgery committed before it was ever brought into the proceeding. This was affirmed and expanded by a five-judge Constitution Bench in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (2005), which held that if a forged document was created before being filed in court, a private complaint could be maintained independently, since the offence was not committed 'in relation to' the court proceeding itself. Courts have consistently read this provision narrowly to avoid letting public servants or litigants misuse it as a shield against legitimate complaints.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Anyone who witnesses a public servant being disobeyed or a lie told in court can file a criminal complaint themselves.
Fact: This section specifically blocks courts from acting on private complaints for these offences — only the public servant concerned, their superior, an authorised officer, or the court itself can file the complaint. - Myth: This provision protects public servants and courts from all forgery-related complaints happening anywhere.
Fact: Courts have clarified (in cases interpreting the identical earlier provision, Section 195 CrPC) that this bar applies only when the offence — like forgery — occurs in relation to a document already produced in court, not to forgery committed before the document ever entered the proceeding.