Offences committed by means of electronic communications, letters, etc
Section 202 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with offences committed by means of electronic communications, letters, etc. Any offence which includes cheating, may, if the deception is practised by means of electronic communications or letters or telecommunication messages, be inquired into or tried by any Court within whose local jurisdiction such electronic communications or letters or messages were sent or were recei The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) Any offence which includes cheating, may, if the deception is practised by means of electronic communications or letters or telecommunication messages, be inquired into or tried by any Court within whose local jurisdiction such electronic communications or letters or messages were sent or were received; and any offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the property was delivered by the person deceived or was received by the accused person.
(2) Any offence punishable under section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the offender last resided with his or her spouse by the first marriage, or the wife by the first marriage has taken up permanent residence after the commission of the offence.
Section 202, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 182 Offences committed by letters, etc Text carried over almost unchanged 87%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
This section refers to
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.
-
Kaushik Chaterjee vs State of Haryana
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 182, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The question of territorial jurisdiction in criminal proceedings is a question of fact that must be established through evidence and cannot be decided at the transfer petition stage. The trial court, not the Supreme Court, is the appropriate forum to decide jurisdictional issues after evidence is led on the place of commission of the offence and other relevant factors enumerated in Sections 177 to 184 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, transfer petitions seeking transfer on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction must be dismissed, leaving it open to the parties to raise and have the trial court decide the jurisdictional issue during the trial.
On this section: Provides that offences of cheating by means of letters or telecommunication messages may be inquired into or tried by any Court within whose local jurisdiction such letters or messages were sent or received. Also covers cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
-
Bridgestone India Pvt. LTD vs Inderpal Singh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 182, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
After the promulgation of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015, territorial jurisdiction for criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is determined by the place where the cheque is delivered for collection (i.e., the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course maintains the account) or where it is presented for payment (i.e., the branch of the drawee bank where the drawer maintains the account), not by the place where the cheque is drawn. The amended Section 142(2), through the non-obstante clause in Section 142A(1), overrides prior judgments and the general jurisdiction principles under Section 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and applies retrospectively to cases pending before the amendment came into force.
On this section: Provision regarding jurisdiction in cases of multiple offences. Referenced in the context of when cheque dishonour is committed along with other offences.
-
Bridgestone India PVT LTD vs Inderpal Singh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 182, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
After the promulgation of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015, territorial jurisdiction for prosecuting an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, lies in the court within whose local jurisdiction the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course maintains an account is situated (i.e., where the cheque is delivered for collection), not where the cheque is drawn or where the drawee bank is located. The amended Section 142(2) and Section 142A(1) override the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and prior judgments, including Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod's case, and apply retrospectively to pending cases.
On this section: Cited in the context of exceptions to the general jurisdictional rule when multiple offences are committed in a single transaction.
-
Jyoti vs State of Haryana
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 182, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An administrative authority cannot transfer the investigation of an FIR from one district to another without granting a fair hearing to both the complainant and the accused, as such transfer affects the statutory rights of the complainant under the Code of Criminal Procedure and violates the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. The territorial jurisdiction of the police station where the complainant resides cannot be overridden by administrative transfer orders passed without procedural safeguards and without hearing the affected parties.
On this section: This section provides that offences under Section 494 IPC (bigamy) may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the offender last resided with his or her spouse by the first marriage. The court used this provision to establish the territorial jurisdiction principle and argue that the complainant has a statutory right to have the case investigated in the jurisdiction where she resides.
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 202
What have the courts held on Section 202 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Kaushik Chaterjee vs State of Haryana (30 Sep 2020) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 182, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Provides that offences of cheating by means of letters or telecommunication messages may be inquired into or tried by any Court within whose local jurisdiction such letters or messages were sent or received. Also covers cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Another 3 judgments on this section are set out below, 3 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2015 to 2022.
How do I find court cases under Section 202 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha 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: BNSS 202, section 202 BNSS, section 202 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 4 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Kaushik Chaterjee vs State of Haryana (30 Sep 2020).
What should I read with Section 202 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 82 (Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife), so none of them can safely be read on its own. It carries forward CrPC 182 (Offences committed by letters, etc), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 202 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 202 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 202, 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
- 359. Compounding of offences1355 words
- 187. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours1122 words
- 2. Definitions956 words
- 243. Trial for more than one offence930 words
- 35. When police may arrest without warrant881 words
- 480. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence823 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.