Particulars as to time, place and person
Section 212 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with particulars as to time, place and person. The charge shall contain such particulars as to the time and place of the alleged offence, and the person (if any) against whom, or the thing (if any) in respect of which, it was committed, as are reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged. The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
(1) The charge shall contain such particulars as to the time and place of the alleged offence, and the person (if any) against whom, or the thing (if any) in respect of which, it was committed, as are reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged.
(2) When the accused is charged with criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of money or other movable property, It shall be sufficient to specify the gross sum or, as the case may be, describe the movable property in respect of which the offence is alleged to have been committed, and the dates between which the offence is alleged to have been committed, without specifying particular items or exact dates, and the charge so framed shall be deemed to be a charge of one offence within the meaning of section 219;
Provided that the time included between the first and last of such dates shall not exceed one year.
Section 212, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 235 Particulars as to time, place and person Text carried over almost unchanged 100%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
-
Subhash Chand Yadav vs State Govt. of Nct of Delhi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A charge framing order must be a speaking order providing reasons for the decision. When a trial court frames charges without proper reasoning and without adequately establishing the ingredients of the alleged offense, the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to set aside such orders and remand the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration with proper application of the law and procedure.
On this section: Charge - The court directed that charges should be re-framed keeping in mind the proper procedure for framing charges as per Section 212 CrPC.
-
R.l.kapoor vs State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a higher court reverses an order of discharge passed by a lower court at the charge-framing stage, it must provide detailed reasoning based on a proper consideration of the material on record. The reversal cannot be based on factually incorrect premises or conclusions without supporting reasons. Furthermore, charges must be framed in accordance with the procedural requirements of Sections 212 and 213 CrPC, containing specific particulars for each accused. If these requirements are not met, the revision petition must be remanded to the lower court for fresh consideration on merits with proper opportunity for all parties to be heard.
On this section: Requirements for framing charges; charges must contain particulars of offence and must be clear and specific for each accused
-
Bachu Singh @ Bachhu Singh @ Chandan Kumar vs The State of Bihar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Mere co-ownership of a property from which stolen articles are recovered, without evidence of direct involvement or knowledge of the theft, does not constitute sufficient grounds for denying bail to an accused person, particularly when the charge sheet has been filed and the accused has already undergone substantial custody. The court must distinguish between the actual perpetrator of a crime and a property owner whose premises were used by the perpetrator, and bail should be granted based on the strength of evidence against the accused and consideration of custody duration.
On this section: Harboring offenders; the court noted that at best, the allegations against the petitioner might attract this section rather than Section 379 IPC, indicating insufficient evidence for the primary charge
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.
-
… He would also lay emphasis on Rule 4A of the Rules to point out that earlier it was only related to conviction which later included filing of charge-sheet and then taking cognizance. Citing distinction between the requirements under Section 212 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Form No.26 and the present Form No.26 of the Rules, it is argued that it has undergone substantial changes. He has referred to Clause (5) of the Table in Form No.26 of the Rules passed on 10.10.2018. Referring to Form No.26 of the Rules, he would contend that candidate is …
-
… Even these particulars may sometimes not be enough in many cases to enable the accused/appellants to properly defend themselves and that is why there is a specific requirement incorporated in Section 213 of the Cr.P.C that if the particulars mentioned in Sections 211 and 212 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not give the appellants sufficient notice of the matter with which they are charged, the charge shall also contain such particulars of the manner in which the alleged offence was committed as will be sufficient for that purpose. 23. Further, the FIR states that there are three …
-
… 7, and 8 of you committed the offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, and section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, which are within my cognizance,. " 2. Sri.K.M.Sathyanatha Menon, the learned counsel of the petitioners contended that as per the provisions of Section 211 and 212 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the charge must contain particulars as to the time and place of the alleged offence as well as the person against whom or in respect of which the offence was committed as are reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter he is charged with. It was …
Questions about Section 212
What have the courts held on Section 212 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Subhash Chand Yadav vs State Govt. of Nct of Delhi (16 Aug 2010) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Charge - The court directed that charges should be re-framed keeping in mind the proper procedure for framing charges as per Section 212 CrPC. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below. They run from 2008 to 2022.
How do I find court cases under Section 212 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
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: CRPC 212, section 212 CRPC, section 212 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. People searching for it also type 212 crpc in bnss and 212 crpc pakistan. 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 Subhash Chand Yadav vs State Govt. of Nct of Delhi (16 Aug 2010).
What should I read with Section 212 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 219 (Three offences of same kind within year may be charged together), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 235 (Particulars as to time, place and person), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 212 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 212 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 212, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.