False charge of offence made with intent to injure
Section 248 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with false charge of offence made with intent to injure. Whoever, with intent to cause injury to any person, institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against that person, or falsely charges any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against that person,— (a The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
Whoever, with intent to cause injury to any person, institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against that person, or falsely charges any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against that person,—
(a) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine which may extend to two lakh rupees, or with both;
(b) if such criminal proceeding be instituted on a false charge of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for ten years or upwards, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 248, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 211 False charge of offence made with intent to injure Text carried over almost unchanged 96%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
How this offence is classified
From the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which classifies every offence under the Sanhita. Cognizable means a police officer may arrest without warrant; bailable means bail is a matter of right rather than of the court's discretion. This section is classified 2 ways.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| False charge of offence made with intent to injure. | Imprisonment for 5 years, or fine of 2 lakh rupees, or both. | Non-cognizable. | Bailable. | Magistrate of the first class. |
| Criminal proceeding instituted on a false charge of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for ten years or upwards. | Imprisonment for 10 years and fine. | Non-cognizable. | Bailable. | Court of Session. |
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Abdul Rehman v. K.M. Anees-ul-Haq
Decided under Indian Penal Code 211, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-9.pdf 2011-11-14 labelled Judgment. DATE-CHECK generic cache warning (false positive); markdown is the 2011 Cyriac Joseph/T.S. Thakur reportable (Crl A 2090-2093/2011). A private s.211 complaint is barred by CrPC 195(1)(b)(i) when the false charge is 'in relation to' pending bail proceedings (Kamlapati Trivedi / S.K. Bannu). Parallel 500 cannot proceed independently on the same facts. Do not remap crpc 195 (Iqbal Singh Marwah already).
On this section: Successor of IPC 211 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9565). The false-charge / s.195 bar teaching carries to BNS 248.
-
Ashok Kumar Mittal vs Sat Kamal Pathak
Decided under Indian Penal Code 211, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a complaint for perjury and false prosecution is filed after a malicious FIR has been quashed by the High Court, the limitation period for such complaint should be computed from the date of quashing of the FIR, not from the date of its registration. The cause of action arises when the false allegations are judicially determined to be baseless. Additionally, when multiple offences are charged together, the limitation period is determined with reference to the offence punishable with the most severe punishment, and the trial court must consider the substantive merits of the complaint before dismissing it on limitation grounds alone.
On this section: Fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction for offence punishable with life imprisonment or 7 years imprisonment. Court held that cognizance can only be taken on complaint of Court or authorized officer under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC.
-
Daljeet Singh Chandok vs State
Decided under Indian Penal Code 211, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cheque dishonour cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the High Court should not exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash summoning orders at the threshold stage, especially when there is inordinate delay in challenging the order. The accused should be allowed to defend themselves in the trial court, and the trial court should dispose of the matter expeditiously in accordance with the legislative intent of the 2002 amendments. The inherent powers of the High Court should not be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution or to allow accused to escape trial through premature High Court petitions.
On this section: Offence of giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence. The court noted that trial courts can initiate proceedings under this section if accused persons are wrongly implicated.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… B, A institutes a criminal proceeding against him, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding, and also falsely accuses B of having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such charge. A may be separately charged with, and convicted of, two offences under section 248 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. (e) A, with intent to cause injury to B, falsely accuses him of having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such charge. On the trial, A gives false evidence against B, intending thereby to cause B to be convicted of a capital offence. A …
-
… This bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been moved on behalf of accusedapplicant, Deepchand Agrawal, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 682 of 2024, under Sections 109, 61(2) and 248 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Hapur Nagar, District Hapur. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accusedapplicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case crime number. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the present case the applicant himself is …
Questions about Section 248
What have the courts held on Section 248 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Abdul Rehman v. K.M. Anees-ul-Haq (14 Nov 2011) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 211, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of IPC 211 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9565). The false-charge / s.195 bar teaching carries to BNS 248. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below, 1 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2006 to 2024.
Is Section 248 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 248 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cognizable?
Non-cognizable. "Cognizable" means a police officer may arrest without warrant; "non-cognizable" that they may not. An offence under this section is triable by Magistrate of the first class.
How do I find court cases under Section 248 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNS 248, section 248 BNS, section 248 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 248 in ipc and bns 248 and 229. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Abdul Rehman v. K.M. Anees-ul-Haq (14 Nov 2011).
What should I read with Section 248 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
3 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward IPC 211 (False charge of offence made with intent to injure), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 248 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 248 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 248, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions2199 words
- 356. Defamation1543 words
- 335. Making a false document1318 words
- 101. Murder1177 words
- 303. Theft1104 words
- 3. General explanations858 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.