Procedure in cases mentioned in section 215
Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with procedure in cases mentioned in section 215. When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 215, which appears to have been committed in or in relati The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 215, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary,---
(a) record a finding to that effect;
(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;
(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;
(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and
(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate.
(2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint under sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of section 215.
(3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed,---
(a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint;
(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court or by such officer of the Court as the Court may authorise in writing in this behalf.
(4) In this section, "Court" has the same meaning as in section 215.
Section 379, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 340 Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195 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.
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.
-
Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 340, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-3.pdf 2005-03-11 DATE VERIFIED. 5-judge Constitution Bench (Lahoti CJI; Mathur J. for the Court). Crl A 402/2005. Skip same-date concurrence/ROP. CrPC 195(1)(b)(ii) bars a private complaint only when the forgery is committed after the document is produced in court (custodia legis). Pre-production forgery is prosecutable on a private complaint. s.340 is the procedure when the bar applies. Map crpc 195 and 340; BNSS 215/379 as successors. Do not pad IPC 193.
On this section: Successor of CrPC 340 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9922). The s.340 expediency procedure carries to BNSS 379.
-
Kaushik Chaterjee vs State of Haryana
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 340, 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: Petitioner filed an application under this section seeking prosecution of officials of the finance company for allegedly committing perjury by claiming the company had an office in Gurugram.
-
Sasikala Pushpa vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 340, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A clerical error or incorrect statement regarding date and place in a procedural document like a vakalatnama, where the party admits to the genuine signatures and provides a plausible explanation for the error, does not constitute forgery or fraud upon the court warranting criminal prosecution under Sections 193, 466, 468, and 471 IPC. Fraud requires mens rea (criminal intention) to deceive and cause wrongful gain or loss. Before exercising jurisdiction under Section 340 Cr.P.C. to direct a criminal complaint, the court must be satisfied that it is 'expedient in the interest of justice' by weighing the effect on administration of justice, not merely the injury to a person. A mere incorrect statement in a procedural document that has no bearing on the merits of the case and causes no demonstrable harm to the administration of justice does not justify criminal prosecution.
On this section: Court's power to direct investigation into offences affecting administration of justice; central issue in the case
-
Meenakshi Lekhi vs Rahul Gandhi
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 340, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court's core ratio appears to center on the threshold requirements for criminal contempt jurisdiction and the scrutiny required before entertaining review petitions and applications for initiating criminal proceedings against parties. The court distinguished between legitimate criticism and contempt of court, and established that not all allegations or disputes constitute grounds for contempt proceedings or criminal prosecution.
On this section: Application pertaining to initiation of criminal proceedings for making false or frivolous allegations in court
-
Avishek Raja vs Sanjay Gupta
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 340, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The bench could not complete hearing on the contempt matters on 10-01-2017 and determined that further hearing was necessary to properly adjudicate the complex issues involving 71 consolidated contempt petitions spanning multiple media organizations and journalists; court fixed 17-01-2017 for resumed hearing.
On this section: Application for treatment of contempt of court proceedings under criminal procedure rules; authority to prosecute contempt as criminal matter
-
National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms Joint Secretary vs The Bar Council of India Chairman
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 340, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a party makes averments in court proceedings on the advice of its counsel, and subsequently tenders an unconditional apology, an application to initiate criminal proceedings under Section 340 CRPC read with Section 195 CRPC should be rejected, provided the court is satisfied that the averments were indeed made on legal advice as evidenced in the court's orders in the main matter.
On this section: Section 340 CRPC provides for initiation of criminal proceedings against a person who makes false statements in court. The court declined to initiate such proceedings, finding that the statements were made on legal advice and an unconditional apology was tendered.
-
Shri Kailash Vijayvargiya vs Antar Singh Darbar
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 340, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The mere fact that a person has made a contradictory statement in a judicial proceeding is not by itself always sufficient to justify a prosecution under Sections 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code. It must be shown that the defendant has intentionally given a false statement at any stage of the judicial proceedings or fabricated false evidence for the purpose of using the same at any stage of the judicial proceedings. Even after such position has emerged, the court has to form an opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice to initiate an inquiry into the offences of false evidence and offences against public justice as referred in Section 340(1) of the CrPC, having regard to the overall factual matrix as well as the probable consequences of such a prosecution. The court must be satisfied that such an inquiry is required in the interests of justice and appropriate in the facts of the case.
On this section: Court's power to direct investigation into offences of false evidence and offences against public justice. The Court held that mere satisfaction is not enough; the court must form an opinion that such inquiry is expedient in the interests of justice.
-
Shri Kailash Vijayvargiya vs Antar Singh Darbar
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 340, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Mere allegations of contradictory statements, factual errors in description of parties, or absence from notary signing procedures do not constitute sufficient grounds for initiating a preliminary inquiry under Section 340 CrPC into alleged false evidence and perjury. A court must form a definite opinion that the inquiry is expedient in the interests of justice, taking into account the overall factual matrix, the probable consequences of prosecution, and the requirement that the defendant must have intentionally given a false statement or deliberately fabricated evidence. The absence of such satisfaction renders the direction to initiate inquiry invalid and requires remand for fresh consideration.
On this section: Court applied Section 340 CrPC standard for initiating inquiry into alleged false evidence - held that mere allegation insufficient without satisfaction that inquiry is expedient in interests of justice. Court emphasized that overall factual matrix and probable consequences must be considered.
-
Ashok Kumar Mittal vs Sat Kamal Pathak
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 340, 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: Procedure for complaint of perjury. The petitioner filed complaint under this section against respondents for committing perjury.
-
Jijimon K.M. vs State Of Kerala
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 340, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a deponent in a judicial proceeding, particularly a police officer who is a party to the suit, is fully aware that disciplinary proceedings and punishment imposed in connection with the very incident that is subject matter of the suit are highly relevant to the case, and such deponent deliberately denies the existence of such punishment when specifically questioned during cross-examination, knowing such denial to be false, a prima facie case is made out for investigating alleged false evidence under Section 193 IPC. It is expedient in the interests of justice to initiate proceedings under Section 340 CrPC in such circumstances, as the false evidence goes to the credibility and integrity of the witness and the administration of justice itself.
On this section: Procedure for court to make complaint for offences in relation to proceedings in that court; core provision governing this case
-
Court on Its Own Motion vs Mulakh Raj
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 340, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When conduct of a police officer during investigation prima-facie constitutes an offence under the Indian Penal Code (such as fabricating false evidence under Sections 192-195 IPC), and specific procedures exist in the Criminal Procedure Code for addressing such conduct (Sections 340, 345, 346, 348), the High Court should exercise restraint and not invoke its contempt jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The proviso to Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act bars High Court jurisdiction when the alleged contempt is an offence punishable under IPC. Contempt proceedings should be initiated only when there is real prejudice constituting substantial interference with the due course of justice, and not as an omnibus remedy for every wrong affecting judicial proceedings.
On this section: Procedure for initiating proceedings for offences against public justice and provisions for discharge on apology
-
Prabhat Pandey @ Mr. Prabhat Pandey vs The State of Bihar
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 340, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases where a vehicle is seized in connection with drunken driving but no liquor is recovered from the vehicle, the confiscating authority must record a positive finding on the applicability of Section 56 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 before passing any confiscation order. The confiscating authority must decide this issue as a preliminary matter before proceeding with confiscation. The reasonable time period for completing confiscation proceedings under Section 58 of the Act is three months. Provisional release of seized vehicles should be granted pending completion of confiscation proceedings in cases where the vehicle is not liable to be confiscated or where there is inordinate delay.
On this section: Procedure for prosecution of public servants for giving false evidence or fabricating false records
-
Daljeet Singh Chandok vs State
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 340, 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: Procedure for prosecution of persons making false accusations. The court noted that trial courts can initiate proceedings under this section if complainants wrongly implicate accused persons.
-
David John vs State of Kerala
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 340, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a witness is prosecuted for perjury under Section 193 IPC following a trial, and an appeal is pending against the decision in the main judicial proceeding (filed by parties to the main case, not by the witness under Section 341 CrPC), the trial court must stay the perjury proceedings until the appellate court disposes of the appeal. This is because the appellate court may accept the witness's testimony as truthful, and allowing the perjury conviction to proceed would create an anomalous situation where the witness is convicted for perjury despite the higher court finding their testimony credible. Section 343(2) CrPC provides the legal basis for such adjournment.
On this section: Provides procedure for preliminary enquiry before prosecuting a witness for perjury; cited as the basis for initiating perjury proceedings
-
Pawan Kumar Gaud Son of Durgashankar vs State of Rajasthan
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 340, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a witness who initiates a criminal complaint and participates as an independent witness in trap proceedings subsequently turns hostile during trial and gives false evidence with the intention of saving the accused from criminal charges, the trial court is justified in issuing a show cause notice under Section 344 CrPC, provided the mandatory conditions are satisfied: (1) the court forms an opinion that the witness knowingly or willfully gave false evidence, (2) the court concludes that in the interest of justice the witness should be punished summarily, and (3) the witness is given reasonable opportunity to show cause. The High Court will not interfere with such action under Section 482 CrPC.
On this section: Alternative procedure for prosecution of perjury - the court noted that Section 344 provides an alternative to the ordinary procedure under Sections 340-343 for dealing with perjury.
-
Udai Singh vs State of Rajasthan
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 340, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
For prosecution of a public servant (police officer) for offences under Sections 193, 195, and 196 IPC (relating to false evidence in judicial proceedings), a written complaint from the court in relation to which the offences were committed is mandatory under Section 195 Cr.P.C. Additionally, for prosecution under Sections 166 and 167 IPC for acts allegedly committed in discharge of official duty, prosecution sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. from the competent authority is necessary. Absence of these procedural requirements renders the prosecution invalid and liable to be set aside.
On this section: Application for inquiry into false evidence. Court granted liberty to respondent to file application under this section before competent court.
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.
-
… THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has raised an objection that order which is challenged is passed under Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('the BNSS Act' for short). The appeal is provided under Section 380 of the BNSS Act. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to convert this writ petition into a criminal appeal. 3. The submission is …
-
… Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since in the impugned order, it has been stated that the application is not maintainable, thus, the petitioners be permitted to withdraw the present revision petition with liberty to file an application under Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (previously Section 340 Cr.P.C.). It is prayed that the said application be considered independently, in accordance with law. CR-5023-2024 -2- 3. In view of the above, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw the present …
-
… Therefore, he sought dismissal of the original petition and :12: also sought to initiate proceedings under Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and filed a petition as I.A. No.1 of 2024 seeking a direction to the Registrar of this Court to file a complaint with the competent Magistrate under Section 192, 193 and 209 of the Indian Penal Code, in the interest of justice. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed …
Questions about Section 379
What have the courts held on Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (11 Mar 2005) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 340, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of CrPC 340 (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9922). The s.340 expediency procedure carries to BNSS 379. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 8 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2005 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 379 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 379, section 379 BNSS, section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type bnss 379 in crpc and 379 bnss punishment. 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 Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (11 Mar 2005).
What should I read with Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 215 (. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence), 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 340 (Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 379, 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.