Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant
Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant. Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management. The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management. disobeys such direction,
shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any persons lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both:
and if such disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Explanation.-It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm.
Illustration
An order is promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgated such order, directing that a religious procession shall not pass down a certain street. A knowingly disobeys the order, and thereby causes danger of riot. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
Section 188, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 223 Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant Text carried over almost unchanged 98%
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.
Referred to by 43
- Administrators-General Act s. 45 Power of auditors to summon and examine witnesses, and to call for documents
- Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 and Rules s. 3 Extent of application
- Arunachal Pradesh (Tourism Trade Registration and Regulation) Act s. 27
- Assam Municipal Corporation Act s. 232
- Cantonments Act s. 157 Special measures in case of outbreak of infectious or epidemic diseases
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 136 Consequences of his failing to do so
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 141 Procedure on order being made absolute and consequences of disobedience
- Code of Criminal Procedure Act s. 136 Consequences of his failing to do so
- Code of Criminal Procedure Act s. 141 Procedure on order being made absolute and consequences of disobedience
- Code of Criminal Procedure (Goa, Daman and Diu Amendment) Act s. 2 Amendment of section 156
- Criminal Law Amendment Act s. 10 Power of State Government to make certain offences cognizable and non-bailable
- Code of Criminal Procedure s. 136 Consequences of his failing to do so
and 31 more
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.
-
C. Muniappan vs State of Tamil Nadu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The ratio decidendi of this judgment is multi-faceted: (1) Charges under Section 188 IPC cannot be framed without written complaint by competent public servant as mandated by Section 195 CrPC, and absence of such complaint renders those charges void ab initio. However, such procedural defect does not vitiate the entire prosecution case or other charges if sufficient evidence exists for those charges. (2) Test identification parade is primarily an investigative tool and corroborative evidence, not substantive evidence. Actual evidence is the court testimony of witnesses. Identification parade is reliable when conducted properly without prior exposure of accused to witnesses, and when witnesses have direct observation opportunity. (3) Evidence of hostile witnesses cannot be rejected in toto; relevant parts consistent with prosecution or defence case can be relied upon after close scrutiny. (4) Defective investigation does not automatically lead to acquittal; court must examine evidence independently of investigation lapses to determine reliability. (5) Death sentence is warranted in rarest of rare cases involving planned, brutal crimes with exceptional depravity targeting helpless victims, where collective conscience is shocked, and no mitigating circumstances exist. Life imprisonment is the rule; death penalty is exception. (6) Two separate FIRs arising from same incident can be clubbed into one charge sheet if they are part of continuous sequence of events.
On this section: Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant - charges quashed for lack of written complaint by competent officer
-
The State of Maharashtra Controller, Food and Drugs Administration Principal Secretary vs Sk. Sujauddin Sk. Khaliluddin
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more enactments, the offender may be prosecuted and punished under either or any of those enactments, but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence. The existence of specific penalty provisions in a special enactment does not bar concurrent prosecution under the Indian Penal Code. Section 188 of the IPC applies to disobedience of orders issued by public servants (including Food Safety Officers) where such disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, and is not limited to breaches of law and order.
On this section: Section 188 (disobedience to order) was interpreted broadly to include acts causing danger to human life, health or safety, not merely breach of law and order; Sections 272, 273, 328 relate to adulteration and sale of noxious substances
-
Kerala State Electricity Board vs Livisha
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Compensation for trees cut by electricity authorities under Section 10, Part III of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 cannot be determined by applying a fixed formula. Each case must be assessed on its individual merits, considering factors such as the situs of land, distance between the high voltage line and property, extent of line on property, whether the line passes over a small track or middle of land, value of land, owner's substantive right to use property, and for fruit-bearing trees, the yield basis. The real rate of interest (5%) is more appropriate than the prevalent bank rate (10%), and inflation is a relevant consideration factor. However, the 5% rate should not be treated as a fixed rule for all periods, and different rates may apply in different periods with relevant data. Each case requires individual merit-based assessment without applying hard and fast rules.
On this section: Offense for resisting or obstructing exercise of telegraph authority powers after District Magistrate's order
-
Hamid Mohd vs Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir Through Financial Commissioner (Additional Chief Secretary) Home Department Civil Secretariat, Jammu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Preventive detention under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 cannot be justified solely on the basis of repeated FIRs for offences that do not relate to maintenance of public order. The distinction between 'Public Order' (disturbance of general tranquility of the community) and 'Law and Order' (acts directed against individuals) is crucial. Offences under Section 188 IPC and violations of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, even if repeated, do not constitute grounds for preventive detention aimed at maintaining public order. Such matters must be dealt with through ordinary criminal procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or through preventive measures like Section 110 CrPC for habitual offenders. Preventive detention cannot be used as a shortcut to bypass ordinary criminal procedure.
On this section: These sections were cited in the FIRs against the petitioner; the court noted that most FIRs involved Section 188 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) and questioned whether such offences relate to maintenance of public order
-
Kaasula Balraju vs The State of Telangana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Obstructing public movement in one direction on a road, causing annoyance to the public exercising their right to use that road, constitutes public nuisance under Section 290 IPC read with Section 268 IPC, even if the obstruction is for a political cause like demanding district status. However, such obstruction does not constitute wrongful restraint under Section 341 IPC (which requires preventing movement in any direction), nor does it constitute unlawful assembly under Section 141-145 IPC (which requires criminal force or show of criminal force with specific common objects), and prosecution for disobedience under Section 188 IPC is barred by Section 195 IPC.
On this section: Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant - court found cognizance barred by Section 195 IPC
-
Police Commissioner vs Yash Pal Sharma
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When police use force to disperse an unlawful assembly, they are authorized to use only reasonable and necessary force as prescribed by Section 129 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Rule 14.56 of Punjab Police Rules. The force must be used solely for the purpose of dispersing the assembly and not for punitive or repressive purposes. If the police exceeds this limit and uses excessive or brutal force, it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), and 21 of the Constitution, and the state is liable to compensate the victim for the tort committed by its employees. The reasonableness of force used must be assessed based on the facts and circumstances of each case, including the nature of the assembly, whether it was armed or unarmed, whether warning was given, and the nature and severity of injuries inflicted.
On this section: Provides for punishment for disobedience of orders promulgated under Section 144 CrPC. The court noted that instead of resorting to lathi charge, police could have arrested the demonstrators for this offense.
-
Mohd. Zahir vs The Union Territory Of Jammu & Kashmir
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Preventive detention under Public Safety Act cannot be invoked to circumvent or subvert ordinary criminal law remedies. Where a competent court has granted bail to an accused and the accused is facing trial while complying with bail conditions, preventive detention based on the same set of allegations cannot be justified without compelling reasons, as this violates fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. The detaining authority must apply its mind to all material facts, including existing bail orders, and must consider representations within reasonable time. Failure to do so vitiates the detention order.
On this section: Various criminal offences under which FIRs were registered against the detenue; ordinary criminal law remedies available through bail and trial
-
Vetukuri Venkata Siva Ramaraju vs Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Criminal cases at the FIR stage, which are still under investigation and have not reached the stage of proceedings before a criminal court, cannot be valid grounds for refusing to issue or renew a passport. The right to travel abroad is a fundamental human right protected under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. An accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty and is entitled to all fundamental rights. Therefore, passport authorities cannot deny passport issuance based solely on pending FIR stage investigations without a court order prohibiting travel.
On this section: These sections were cited as the offences under which the criminal cases were registered against the petitioner. The court noted that these are relatively minor offences and the cases remain at investigation stage.
-
Vetukuri Venkata Siva Ramaraju vs Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Criminal cases at the FIR stage, which are still under investigation and have not reached the stage of formal proceedings before a criminal court, cannot be the sole or primary ground for refusing to issue or renew a passport. The right to travel abroad is a fundamental human right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, and the presumption of innocence applies to passport issuance decisions. A passport authority cannot arbitrarily refuse a passport merely because criminal investigations are pending against an applicant; such refusal must be based on formal criminal proceedings before a court as contemplated by Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967.
On this section: These sections were cited as the offences under which the criminal cases were registered against the petitioner. The court noted these were relatively minor offences and that the cases were still under investigation.
-
Miryala Phanindra vs State of Telangana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Mere presence of an accused at the scene of a crime, without specific evidence of participation, possession of contraband, or role attribution by the investigating agency, does not constitute criminal liability under NDPS Act, Excise Act, Disaster Management Act, Epidemic Disease Act, or IPC. The investigating agency must specify the exact role played by each accused and provide concrete evidence (such as recovery of prohibited substance from the accused's possession or evidence of consumption) to justify prosecution. Absence of such specific evidence is fatal to the prosecution.
On this section: Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant; requires specific complaint from concerned public servant and specific role attribution
-
Gangadhara Shastry vs State by Honnavara Police Station
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Proceedings against supplementary accused under Section 319 CrPC require more than prima facie case but short of conviction-level satisfaction. Mere professional advice by advocates or astrologers, family relationships, or general allegations of conspiracy without direct evidence of participation in the alleged extortion scheme do not constitute sufficient grounds to proceed against supplementary accused. Proceeding against such accused amounts to abuse of process of court and warrants quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. However, if during trial evidence surfaces against them meeting the Section 319 CrPC threshold, trial court may summon them.
On this section: Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant - cited as example of offence requiring specific person to file complaint
-
Somesh Shokeen vs State Govt. of Nct of Delhi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The period of limitation prescribed under Section 468 CrPC for taking cognizance of certain offences applies to the date of filing the complaint or institution of prosecution/criminal proceedings, and not to the date when the court or Magistrate takes cognizance. A complaint filed within the period of limitation cannot be rendered infructuous or defeated by delay in court proceedings beyond the control of the complainant, as this would violate the principle 'actus curiae neminem gravabit' (an act of the court shall prejudice no man). The limitation period commences from the date of the offence or the date when the offence is detected, as specified in Section 469 CrPC, and the court's act of taking cognizance is not subject to a separate limitation period.
On this section: Defines the offence of disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant. Applied to petitioner's violation of SDM's restraint order.
-
Ranjeet Yadav vs State of U.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An FIR disclosing prima facie cognizable offences cannot be quashed at the writ petition stage merely on the assertion that allegations are false and concocted. However, interim protection from arrest may be granted to an accused willing to cooperate with investigation, with the condition that the accused participates in the investigation and police conclude the investigation expeditiously.
On this section: Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant - alleged violation of lockdown orders
-
State vs Abhinav
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the prosecution fails to follow proper procedure in evidence collection, does not join independent witnesses, does not properly seal and preserve evidence, does not verify manufacturer licenses, and the scientific analysis is inconclusive regarding the percentage of the alleged prohibited substance, the accused is entitled to acquittal on the ground of insufficient evidence and benefit of doubt, even if some procedural violations are established. The burden of proof remains on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and procedural lapses combined with inconclusive evidence warrant acquittal.
On this section: Violation of order promulgated by public servant; Court found that prosecution could not prove the accused violated DCP's order as the sample analysis did not definitively establish nicotine detection
-
Alamanda Chalamayya vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When prima facie evidence exists based on witness statements collected during police investigation and a charge sheet has been filed, criminal proceedings cannot be quashed under Section 482 CrPC at the petition stage. The correctness of witness statements cannot be decided at this stage, and such matters must be decided by the trial court. However, the distinction between cases where quashing is warranted depends on whether material evidence exists showing the connection and role of the accused in the alleged offence. If such material exists, proceedings should continue; if no such material exists, proceedings may be quashed.
On this section: Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant - applied to alleged violation of election code
-
B.m.ibrahim Khaleel vs State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a prosecution contains charges under multiple sections, some of which require sanction under Section 195 Cr.P.C. and others which do not, the High Court will not quash the entire prosecution under Section 482 Cr.P.C. merely because one section requires sanction. Instead, the petitioner must raise such contentions before the trial court, where the court can properly adjudicate the validity of each charge. The inclusion of a charge under Section 283 IPC for traffic obstruction is justified when the core allegation involves violation of court orders resulting in traffic obstruction, even if such charge was not explicitly mentioned in the original FIR.
On this section: Disobedience of court orders - cited as the original charge in the FIR
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.
-
… Hence, the petition filed by the petitioners is liable to be dismissed. 9. Having heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties and the entire material available on the record has been perused. 10 . It is not disputed that Section 188 of IPC is a non cognizable offence. The Code of Criminal Procedure provides procedure for such offence. Section 195 of Cr.P.C reads as follows:- S. 195 (1) No Court shall take cognizance- - (a) (i) of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of …
Questions about Section 188
What have the courts held on Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code?
C. Muniappan vs State of Tamil Nadu (30 Aug 2010) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant - charges quashed for lack of written complaint by competent officer. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 3 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2007 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code?
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: IPC 188, section 188 IPC, section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. 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 C. Muniappan vs State of Tamil Nadu (30 Aug 2010).
What should I read with Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
43 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 223 (Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 188, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 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 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.