eCourtsIndia
IndiaCode Laws
Section211
The Indian Penal Code, 1860

False charge of offence made with intent to injure

Repealed From 01 Jan 1862 Act 45 of 1860 As on 14 Oct 2026

Act 45 of 1860 Ministry Home Affairs Enacted 06 Oct 1860 In force 01 Jan 1862 Cited by 12 provisions

This provision is repealed. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024. It is reproduced because conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.

Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with false charge of offence made with intent to injure. Whoever, with intent to cause injury to any person, institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against that person, or falsely charges any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against that person, sha 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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, with intent to cause injury to any person, institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against that person, or falsely charges any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;

and if such criminal proceeding be instituted on a false charge of an offence punishable with death [imprisonment for life], or imprisonment for seven years or upwards, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 211, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).

Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

BNS 248 False charge of offence made with intent to injure Text carried over almost unchanged 96%

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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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 12

  1. Chhatisgarh Vinirdishta Bhrashta Acharam Nivaram Adhiniyam s. 39 Congnizance of offences
  2. Code of Criminal Procedure s. 220 Trial for more than one offence
  3. Code of Criminal Procedure Act s. 220 Trial for more than one offence
  4. Criminal Law (CG Amendment) ACT s. 2
  5. Criminal Law (Chhattisgarh Amendment) Act s. 1
  6. Criminal Law (Chhattisgarh Amendment) (CRPC, 1972 (2 of 1974)) Act s. 2
  7. Criminal Law (Chhattisgarh Amendment) (Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872)) Act s. 2
  8. Criminal Law (Chhattisgarh Amendment) (IPC, 1860(45 of 1860)) Act s. 2
  9. Code of Criminal Procedure s. 220 Trial for more than one offence
  10. Crpc 1973 s. 220 Trial for more than one offence
  11. Madhya Pradesh Vinirdisht Bhrashtachar Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1982 tatha Uske Adheen Banaye Gaye Niyam s. 39 Congnizance of offences
  12. West Bengal Administrative ( Adjudication Of School Disputes ) Commission Act s. 14

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.

  1. Abdul Rehman v. K.M. Anees-ul-Haq

    Supreme Court of India 14 Nov 2011 Binding (Supreme Court) Reportable (2011) 10 SCC 696

    Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

    Judgment of Main Case order-9.pdf 2011-11-14 labelled Judgment. DATE-CHECK generic cache warning (false positive); markdown is the 2011 Cyriac Joseph/T.S. Thakur reportable (Crl A 2090-2093/2011). A private s.211 complaint is barred by CrPC 195(1)(b)(i) when the false charge is 'in relation to' pending bail proceedings (Kamlapati Trivedi / S.K. Bannu). Parallel 500 cannot proceed independently on the same facts. Do not remap crpc 195 (Iqbal Singh Marwah already).

    On this section: s.211 false charge with intent to injure cannot be privately complained of when the charge is 'in relation to' a pending judicial proceeding; CrPC 195(1)(b)(i) bars it (Abdul Rehman).

    Read the full order on eCourts India

  2. Ashok Kumar Mittal vs Sat Kamal Pathak

    High Court 29 Oct 2024 Persuasive (Other High Court) Reportable

    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: Fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction for offence punishable with life imprisonment or 7 years imprisonment. Court held that cognizance can only be taken on complaint of Court or authorized officer under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC.

    Read the full order on eCourts India

  3. Daljeet Singh Chandok vs State

    High Court 09 Jan 2006 Persuasive (High Court)

    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: Offence of giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence. The court noted that trial courts can initiate proceedings under this section if accused persons are wrongly implicated.

    Read the full order on eCourts India

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 211

What have the courts held on Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code?

Abdul Rehman v. K.M. Anees-ul-Haq (14 Nov 2011) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.211 false charge with intent to injure cannot be privately complained of when the charge is 'in relation to' a pending judicial proceeding; CrPC 195(1)(b)(i) bars it (Abdul Rehman). Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below, 1 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2006 to 2024.

How do I find court cases under Section 211 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 211, section 211 IPC, section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. 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 Abdul Rehman v. K.M. Anees-ul-Haq (14 Nov 2011).

What should I read with Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?

12 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 248 (False charge of offence made with intent to injure), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.

When did Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?

Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 211, 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

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.