Offences of same kind within year may be charged together
Section 242 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with offences of same kind within year may be charged together. When a person is accused of more offences than one of the same kind committed within the space of twelve months from the first to the last of such offences, whether in respect of the same person or not, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, any number of them not exceeding five. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) When a person is accused of more offences than one of the same kind committed within the space of twelve months from the first to the last of such offences, whether in respect of the same person or not, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, any number of them not exceeding five.
(2) Offences are of the same kind when they are punishable with the same amount of punishment under the same section of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 or of any special or local law:
Provided that for the purposes of this section, an offence punishable under sub-section (2) of section 303 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 shall be deemed to be an offence of the same kind as an offence punishable under section 305 of the said Sanhita, and that an offence punishable under any section of the said Sanhita, or of any special or local law, shall be deemed to be an offence of the same kind as an attempt to commit such offence, when such an attempt is an offence.
Section 242, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 219 Three offences of same kind within year may be charged together Text carried over almost unchanged 91%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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 219, 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: Allows any Court competent to inquire into or try any of the offences to inquire into or try all of them.
-
Deepak Chaudhary vs State Nct of Delhi
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 219, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While dishonour of each cheque constitutes a distinct offence and separate cause of action, Sections 219 and 220 of the Criminal Procedure Code provide exceptions to the general rule requiring separate trials. However, Section 219 CrPC restricts joint trial of offences of the same kind to a maximum of three offences committed within 12 months. Therefore, in cases involving more than three cheque dishonours, the trial court must club a maximum of three complaint cases for joint trial in accordance with Section 219 CrPC, and the remaining cases must be tried separately or in groups of three. Legislative amendment is required to allow joint trial of more than three cheque dishonour cases.
On this section: Provides that when a person is accused of more than one offence of the same kind committed within 12 months, a maximum of three such offences may be tried together; the court applied this restriction to limit joint trial to three cheque dishonour cases
-
Gatrod Agro Bio-fuels Private Ltd.& ORS. vs Garg Distilleries Private Ltd.
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 219, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where multiple cheques are dishonoured and separate statutory notices are issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for each cheque, each cheque dishonour constitutes a separate cause of action. Consequently, such cases cannot be consolidated into a single trial under Section 219 CrPC, which is an enabling provision permitting but not mandating consolidation. The critical factor is whether a single notice or separate notices were issued; separate notices create separate causes of action requiring separate trials.
On this section: Provision permitting consolidation of offences of same kind; court interpreted as enabling provision, not mandatory; separate notices for each cheque prevent consolidation
-
Gatrod Agro Bio-fuels Private Ltd.& ORS. vs Garg Distilleries Private Ltd.
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 219, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When separate statutory notices are issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of different cheques, each cheque dishonour constitutes a separate cause of action, and therefore separate trials are permissible and legally justified. Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an enabling provision that permits but does not mandate consolidation of trials. The issuance of separate notices, even on the same day, creates distinct causes of action that can be tried separately without illegality.
On this section: Enables consolidation of offences of the same kind; court interpreted as enabling provision, not mandatory; separate trials permissible when separate notices issued
-
Manepalli Mohana Rao vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 219, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When similar criminal offences are registered against the same accused within a short period from different police stations, and there is evidence of potential abuse of process to prevent the accused from claiming procedural benefits, the High Court may exercise its discretionary power under Section 407 CrPC to transfer and consolidate such cases to a single court for simultaneous trial, particularly when such consolidation would promote judicial efficiency, prevent abuse of process, and ensure witness convenience.
On this section: Benefit of consolidation of charges - the accused sought to claim this benefit by consolidating the cases, which the complainants allegedly tried to prevent by filing from different police stations
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 242
What have the courts held on Section 242 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 219, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Allows any Court competent to inquire into or try any of the offences to inquire into or try all of them. Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below, 1 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2015 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 242 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 242, section 242 BNSS, section 242 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type 242 bnss in crpc and bns 242 section. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 5 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 242 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 303 (Theft), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 5 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward CrPC 219 (Three offences of same kind within year may be charged together), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 242 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 242 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 242, 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.