Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace
Section 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace. Whoever intentionally insults in any manner, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which ma The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
Whoever intentionally insults in any manner, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 352, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 504 Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace Text carried over almost unchanged 99%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Insult intended to provoke breach of the peace. | Imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or both. | Non-cognizable. | Bailable. | Any Magistrate. |
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.
-
Fiona Shrikhande vs State of Maharashtra
Decided under Indian Penal Code 504, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When examining a complaint for the offence under Section 504 IPC (Intentional Insult with Intent to Provoke Breach of Peace), a Magistrate need not require that the exact insulting words be verbatim reproduced in the complaint. Instead, the complaint must be read as a whole, and if it discloses prima facie that there has been intentional insult capable of provoking any person to break public peace or commit another offence, considering all background facts, circumstances, occasion, manner of conduct, persons involved, and context, the Magistrate has sufficient grounds to take cognizance and issue process. The discretion exercised by the Magistrate in forming such an opinion cannot be substituted by higher courts.
On this section: Core provision for the offence of Intentional Insult with Intent to Provoke Breach of Peace. Court analysed the three essential ingredients: (1) intentional insult, (2) insult must give provocation to the person insulted, and (3) accused must intend or know that provocation would cause another to break public peace or commit other offence. Court held that the intentional insult must be of such degree as to provoke breach of peace or commission of other offence.
-
Sadhu Saran Singh vs State of U. P.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 504, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate, and reconsider evidence upon which an order of acquittal is founded. While a double presumption of innocence exists in favor of an acquitted person, the paramount consideration is substantial justice and avoiding miscarriage of justice from acquitting the guilty. If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of evidence, acquittal should not be disturbed. However, when the approach of the trial court in acquitting an accused is found to be clearly erroneous in its consideration of evidence and deduction of conclusions, the appellate court must interfere. Ocular (eyewitness) evidence has greater evidentiary value than medical evidence unless the contradiction is so extreme that medical evidence completely rules out all possibilities of the ocular evidence being true. The non-examination of a kidnapped and intimidated witness cannot be fatal to the prosecution case. Evidence of eyewitnesses, though interested parties, is trustworthy when reliable and internally consistent. Minor discrepancies in eyewitness testimony spanning long examination periods are immaterial when the core narrative remains consistent and corroborated.
On this section: Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace - applied to the accused for hurling filthy abuses before the attack
-
Subhash Krishnan vs State of Goa
Decided under Indian Penal Code 504, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal trials involving identification evidence, when multiple independent eyewitnesses positively identify the accused in court with specific reference to identifying features (such as distinctive clothing) and distinctive acts performed during the crime, and when such in-court identification is corroborated by: (a) participation in prior test identification parade conducted within reasonable time of occurrence (24 days) where accused did not challenge procedures; (b) recovery of vehicle and weapons linked to appellant; (c) credible evidence of previous acquaintance supporting enduring impress of identity; (d) consistent medical/forensic evidence; and (e) circumstances of arrest at scene with weapons, the absence of formal cross-examination of key witness (due to unavoidable circumstances) or initial non-mention in complaint does not vitiate the trial or conviction. The purpose of investigation is to set law in motion and collect evidence; if investigative procedures are thereafter followed lawfully and evidence collected is sufficiently corroborated, conviction can be upheld despite technical defects in initiation of investigation.
On this section: Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace - charged but acquitted as ultimate crime was murder, subsuming this offense
-
Badrinarayana Jaganathan vs The State of Karnataka
Decided under Indian Penal Code 504, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Criminal proceedings initiated on allegations that fail to disclose prima facie ingredients of the offences charged, where the underlying dispute is fundamentally civil in nature (employment termination), and where procedural irregularities and discrepancies suggest deliberate misclassification of the matter to transform a civil dispute into criminal proceedings for purposes of coercion or settlement, constitute an abuse of legal process and travesty of justice warranting quashing of the chargesheet and proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The essential ingredients of criminal offences must be strictly established: Section 323 requires voluntary act of causing actual hurt; Sections 504 and 509 require specific intentional insult with contextual details and intent to provoke or shock sense of decency; Section 506 requires threat with intent to cause alarm, not mere assertion of consequences of lawful termination. Mere allegations without substantiation of these ingredients do not justify continuation of criminal proceedings.
On this section: Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of public peace - Court held mere assertion of 'filthy language' without context, specific words, or gestures insufficient; insult must provoke breach of peace or commission of offence
-
Bannareddy vs The State of Karnataka Navalgund Police Station Police Sub Inspector
Decided under Indian Penal Code 504, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The High Court should not interfere with a well-reasoned order of acquittal passed by the trial court unless strong and compelling reasons exist in the evidence itself which can dislodge the findings. When two views are reasonably possible from the evidence on record, one favouring the accused and one against the accused, the High Court is not expected to reverse the acquittal merely because it would have taken the view against the accused, as the very fact that two views are possible makes it clear that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and consequently the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt through consistent, reliable, and corroborated evidence; material contradictions in witness statements, hostile witnesses, suspicious recovery procedures, and dubious victim conduct collectively render the prosecution case insufficient to sustain conviction.
On this section: Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace - accused charged with abusing victims; conviction reversed
-
Mahadev Prasad Kaushik vs State of U. P.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 504, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A medical professional cannot be prosecuted for culpable homicide (Section 304, IPC) merely because a patient dies after receiving treatment. Criminal prosecution requires either intention to cause death or knowledge that the act would probably cause death. Such mental elements cannot be inferred from the act of administering medical treatment to a voluntary patient. However, if facts establish gross negligence or rash conduct by the doctor in administering treatment (such as lack of requisite medical skill, failure to exercise reasonable care, or administering improper/poisonous injections), the case may proceed under Section 304A (causing death by negligence) which does not require the same degree of mental culpability. The appropriate charge must be calibrated to the evidence, and courts must distinguish between culpable homicide and negligence when issuing criminal process against medical practitioners.
On this section: Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace - court found no proper evidence or finding regarding alleged threat in magistrate's order, hence charges quashed.
-
Guria, Swayam Sevi Sansthan vs State of U. P.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 504, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In bail applications under the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956, and related human trafficking offences, courts must carefully consider the gravity of the charged offences and must not grant bail in a cursory manner. The absence of specific identification or detailed description of an accused person's role in witness statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC is not sufficient ground to grant bail when the accused is charged with serious trafficking-related offences. Courts must distinguish between rescued victims and those accused of perpetrating the trafficking and must not ignore material evidence regarding the systematic nature of the trafficking operation. The severity of punishment provided under the Act (ranging from 3 years to life imprisonment) demands cautious and deliberate consideration of bail applications by higher courts.
On this section: Intentional insult - applied in charge sheets against accused.
-
Jetha Bhaya Odedara vs Ganga Maldebhai Odedara
Decided under Indian Penal Code 504, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a bail matter involving serious criminal charges where nearly two years have elapsed without evidence of tampering or breach of conditions, and where no actual injury resulted from the weapon allegedly used, the Supreme Court will not interfere with a High Court's grant of bail, particularly when the charges arise from gang conflict where both sides have questionable criminal antecedents, provided adequate conditions are imposed to ensure trial fairness and the prosecution retains the right to seek bail cancellation upon breach.
On this section: Criminal intimidation and criminal intimidation by anonymous communication - Initial provocation by abusive language
-
Jagtamba Devi vs Hem Ram
Decided under Indian Penal Code 504, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A court is constitutionally and procedurally bound to provide reasoned orders explaining the basis for its decision. The complete absence of reasons in a judicial order renders that order unsustainable and violates principles of natural justice. An order that merely states "Heard. Dismissed" without any indication of the court's mind or application of law is fundamentally defective and subject to reversal on appeal. The right to reasons is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, and the giving of reasons is one of the salutary requirements of natural justice.
On this section: Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace; charge in the original complaint.
-
Shilpa Sonu Singh vs The State of Maharashtra
Decided under Indian Penal Code 504, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where an accused woman has undergone substantial incarceration (approximately two years) pending trial on serious charges, and considering her gender as a recognized factor in bail jurisprudence, bail may be granted on humanitarian grounds even when the High Court has previously rejected the bail application, without detailed examination of the charge's gravity or the evidence's strength.
On this section: Charge of insult with intent to provoke breach of peace
-
Abhay Saraf vs Nitika Bajaj
Decided under Indian Penal Code 504, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Transfer petitions in criminal cases involving domestic violence charges, dowry allegations, and witch practices accusations cannot be entertained merely on the ground that the accused is gainfully employed in a different city. However, exemption from personal appearance may be granted to such accused based on genuine employment circumstances, subject to compliance with trial court procedures.
On this section: Intentional insult with knowledge of breach of peace
-
Halappa vs State of Karnataka
Decided under Indian Penal Code 504, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Pre-existing family enmity is not a valid consideration for denying probation to first offenders. Trial courts must secure Probation Officer reports before sentencing first offenders under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Female offenders without criminal records, having regard to their age, character, and antecedents, should generally be extended the benefit of probation under Section 360 CrPC even when convicted of assault, provided circumstances warrant such compassionate sentencing.
On this section: Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace; applied to convict all four accused for criminal intimidation through abusive language and conduct
-
Ram Das vs State of M. P
Decided under Indian Penal Code 504, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal cases involving assault or voluntarily causing hurt resulting in death after a significant time lapse, where the direct causation between the injury and death is medically established as indirect, mitigating factors such as trivial origin of dispute, single act of violence, absence of premeditation, lack of prior enmity, and substantial time already served through prolonged litigation can justify reducing the sentence to imprisonment already suffered, provided the conviction is maintained on appropriate lesser charges under the IPC.
On this section: Insult with intent to provoke - Cited in original FIR but not pursued in trial
-
Govind Ramnath Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When co-accused against whom similar allegations are made have been released on bail and the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has undergone significant incarceration, the principle of parity applies.
On this section: Punishment for intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace.
-
Ganesh Reddy vs The State of Maharashtra
Decided under Indian Penal Code 504, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An accused person has a right to speedy trial and cannot be incarcerated indefinitely as an under-trial prisoner; where trial progress is extremely slow and the period of incarceration exceeds four years, the accused is entitled to bail.
On this section: Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.
-
Amit Kesar vs Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir
Decided under Indian Penal Code 504, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, can quash criminal proceedings or FIR based on a compromise reached between the accused and the complainant, particularly in cases involving private disputes between family members. Section 320 CrPC does not limit or affect these powers. When parties have genuinely resolved their differences and are living peacefully together, continuing the criminal prosecution would serve no fruitful purpose and would result in a wasteful mock trial, contrary to the interests of justice.
On this section: Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace; one of the charges in the FIR that was quashed
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.
Questions about Section 352
What have the courts held on Section 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Fiona Shrikhande vs State of Maharashtra (22 Aug 2013) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 504, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Core provision for the offence of Intentional Insult with Intent to Provoke Breach of Peace. Court analysed the three essential ingredients: (1) intentional insult, (2) insult must give provocation to the person insulted, and (3) accused must intend or know that provocation would cause another to break public peace or commit other offence. Court held that the intentional insult must be of such degree as to provoke breach of peace or commission of other offence. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 13 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2026.
Is Section 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 352 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 Any Magistrate.
How do I find court cases under Section 352 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 352, section 352 BNS, section 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 352 2 section in hindi and bns 352 in ipc. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Fiona Shrikhande vs State of Maharashtra (22 Aug 2013).
What should I read with Section 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
It carries forward IPC 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 352, 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.