Sections 182–188 IPC vs Sections 217–223 BNS — False Information, Obstruction and Disobedience of Public Servants

In India, Sections 217 to 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) replaced Sections 182 to 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) on 1 July 2024. The offences are the same; false information to a public servant (Section 217) now carries up to one year, and disobeying a promulgated order (Section 223) up to six months or one year.

At a glance

The CrPC First Schedule classified Sections 182 to 188 IPC in the same way, with Section 188 alone cognizable. None of these offences is compoundable under Section 359 BNSS, as none was under Section 320 CrPC. The neighbouring Sections 189 and 190 IPC (threats of injury to a public servant, or to deter a person from seeking protection) are re-enacted as Sections 224 and 225 BNS with the same two-year and one-year maxima; Section 226 BNS (attempting suicide to compel or restrain a public servant) has no IPC counterpart.

What changed

• Modified — Section 217 BNS (IPC 182). "a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees" becomes "a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees". The two intended consequences — clause (a), doing or omitting what the public servant ought not to if he knew the truth, and clause (b), using his lawful power "to the injury or annoyance of any person" — are unchanged. Clause (a) now ends with a semicolon ("known by him; or"). In the Illustrations, "police-officer" becomes "police officer", and Illustration (c) reads "villagers" where the India Code IPC text prints "villages".
• Modified — Section 223 BNS (IPC 188). Clause (a): "simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees" becomes "six months" and "two thousand and five hundred rupees". Clause (b): "a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees" becomes "one year" and "five thousand rupees". The Explanation (no intent to cause harm needed; knowledge of the order and actual or likely harm suffice) and the Illustration (a religious procession barred from a street) are unchanged. See the Section 144 CrPC vs Section 163 BNSS page for the orders this section enforces.
• Modified — fines only (Sections 218, 219, 221 and 222). Section 218: ₹1,000 → ₹10,000. Section 219: ₹500 → ₹5,000. Section 221: ₹500 → "two thousand and five hundred rupees". Section 222: clause (a) ₹200 → ₹2,500; clause (b) ₹500 → ₹5,000. The prison terms are unchanged.
• Minor edit — Section 222 BNS (IPC 187). "process lawfully issued by a Court of Justice" becomes "by a Court", and the second limb ("and if such assistance be demanded…") becomes clause (b) ("and where such assistance be demanded…").
• Identical — Section 220 BNS (IPC 185). Same words, same one-month term and ₹200 fine.

Statutory text (relevant extract)

Extract, Section 182 IPC, punishment clause (repealed from 1 July 2024):

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.

Extract, Section 217 BNS:

Whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant— (a) to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him; or (b) to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both.

Extract, Section 221 BNS:

Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand and five hundred rupees, or with both.

How it works — the ingredients

1. False information — Section 217. (i) Information given to a public servant; (ii) the giver knows or believes it to be false; (iii) he intends, or knows it to be likely, that the public servant will act or omit as he ought not if he knew the truth, or will use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of any person. Illustration (b): falsely telling a public servant that Z hides contraband salt, knowing a search of Z's premises is likely. Illustration (c): a false report of robbery naming no one, knowing the police will likely search a village to the villagers' annoyance, is enough.
2. Resistance and sales — Sections 218 to 220. Section 218 requires resistance to the taking of property by lawful authority, "knowing or having reason to believe" the person is a public servant. Section 219 requires intentional obstruction of a sale by lawful authority. Section 220 covers buying or bidding for a person known to be legally incapable of purchasing at that sale, or bidding without intending to perform the obligations.
3. Obstruction — Section 221. A voluntary act that obstructs a public servant "in the discharge of his public functions". Where the act is an assault or criminal force to deter the public servant, Section 132 BNS (IPC 353) is the separate, heavier offence.
4. Omission to assist — Section 222. The person must be "bound by law" to assist and must intentionally omit; the higher clause (b) applies when a legally competent public servant demands the assistance for executing Court process, preventing an offence, suppressing a riot or affray, or apprehending an offender or escapee.
5. Disobedience — Section 223. (i) An order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate it; (ii) the accused knows of it; (iii) it directs him to abstain from an act or to take certain order with property in his possession or management; (iv) he disobeys; (v) the disobedience causes or tends to cause the harm in clause (a) or (b).

What this means in practice

For the complainant public servant and prosecutor

• Complaint bar. Section 215(1)(a) BNSS: no Court may take cognizance of an offence under Sections 206 to 223 BNS (except Section 209) "except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate or of some other public servant who is authorised by the concerned public servant so to do". Section 195(1)(a) CrPC did not include the authorised-servant words.
• Where to file. The bar speaks of cognizance by a "Court". Explanatory Note (2) to the BNSS First Schedule says "any Magistrate" does not include Executive Magistrates. B.N. John (below) held under the CrPC that a Section 195(1) complaint must be before a Judicial Magistrate, not an Executive Magistrate.
• Police reports. Sections 217 to 222 are non-cognizable, so Section 174(2) BNSS applies: no investigation without a Magistrate's order. Under the Explanation to Section 2(1)(h) BNSS, a police report disclosing a non-cognizable offence after investigation is deemed a complaint, with the police officer as complainant — but for these sections the Section 215(1)(a) bar asks for the complaint of the public servant concerned.

For the accused and defence advocate

• Check who signed the complaint. A prosecution under Section 217, 221 or 223 BNS launched on a police charge-sheet alone, with no written complaint by the public servant concerned, his superior or his authorised officer, is open to challenge under Section 215(1)(a) BNSS.
• Check whether other offences in the charge are "distinct" or merely a relabelling of the barred offence; Devendra Kumar (below) sets out the test under the CrPC.
• For Section 223, check that the order was "promulgated" by a public servant "lawfully empowered" to make it, and that the accused knew of it.

For a person reporting a crime

• Section 217 punishes information the giver "knows or believes to be false". On a reading of the text, a report made in good faith that later proves mistaken lacks that element.

Judgments that still matter

Saloni Arora v. State of NCT of Delhi, [2017] 1 S.C.R. 397 — 10 January 2017. A.K. Sikri and Abhay Manohar Sapre JJ. (judgment by Sapre J.) considered a prosecution under Section 182 IPC initiated without following Section 195 CrPC. Applying Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab, the Court stated that "in order to prosecute an accused for an offence punishable under Section 182 IPC, it is mandatory to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 195 of the Code else such action is rendered void ab initio" (para 10), and held the action against the appellant under Section 182 void ab initio (para 12). The appeals were allowed and the impugned orders set aside (para 15); the Court expressed no opinion on a fresh application the State said it had filed (paras 13-14).

B.N. John v. State of U.P. & Anr., [2025] 1 S.C.R. 12 (2025 INSC 4) — 2 January 2025. B.V. Nagarathna and N. Kotiswar Singh JJ. (judgment by Kotiswar Singh J.) held that Section 195(1) CrPC bars cognizance of any offence under Sections 172 to 188 IPC except on a written complaint by the public servant concerned (para 15); that the complaint "can only be before a Judicial Magistrate and not an Executive Magistrate" (para 19); and that a written complaint is "sine qua non" for cognizance under Section 186 IPC (para 21). The Court also found no allegation of assault or criminal force to support Section 353 IPC. It allowed the appeal, quashed the proceedings under Sections 353 and 186 IPC and the orders taking cognizance, and set aside the High Court's order (para 43).

Devendra Kumar v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1095 (2025 INSC 1009) — 20 August 2025. J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan JJ. held that "obstruction" in Section 186 IPC "is not confined to physical obstruction", need not be an act of criminal force, and is made out "if the act complained of results in preventing a public servant in discharge of his lawful duties" (para 29). The Court said that where a public servant (here, a Civil Judge's complaint for a process server) has complained in writing, the Magistrate "should have straightaway taken cognizance" rather than send it to the police under Section 156(3) CrPC (paras 12, 14). It summarised that Section 195(1)(a)(i) is mandatory (para 48), that courts may not split up offences to evade the bar where the facts in truth and substance disclose a barred offence (para 59(ii)–(iv)), and that Sections 195(1)(b) and 340 CrPC do not circumscribe the police's power to investigate, the embargo coming into play at cognizance once investigation is complete (para 59(vi)). The petition was disposed of, leaving the petitioner free to raise the Section 195 bar before the trial court if a charge-sheet is filed (para 60).

These three judgments apply the IPC and CrPC. Section 215(1)(a) BNSS repeats the operative words of Section 195(1)(a) CrPC for Sections 206 to 223 BNS (adding the authorised-servant words and excluding Section 209), and Sections 217 and 221 BNS repeat the offence words of Sections 182 and 186 IPC, so on a reading of the text their reasoning bears on the new provisions. No Supreme Court judgment applying Sections 217 to 223 BNS was found in the material searched for this page.

Which law applies to your case

Section 358(2) BNS preserves penalties incurred under the IPC and allows proceedings to be instituted, continued or enforced "as if that Code had not been repealed"; on a reading of that provision, conduct before 1 July 2024 is charged under Sections 182 to 188 IPC. Procedure for matters pending on that date continues under the CrPC (Section 531(2)(a) BNSS). Article 20(1) of the Constitution bars a penalty greater than the law in force at the time, so, on a reading of that Article, the higher maxima in Sections 217 and 223 BNS cannot be applied to earlier conduct. See which law applies to an offence before 1 July 2024.

Frequently asked questions

What is the BNS equivalent of Section 182 IPC? Section 217 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 replaces Section 182 IPC. Giving a public servant information known or believed to be false, intending or knowing it likely that he will act on it wrongly or use his power to the injury or annoyance of any person, is now punishable with imprisonment up to one year, or fine up to ₹10,000, or both. Section 182 IPC allowed up to six months or ₹1,000.

Which BNS section replaces Section 186 IPC on obstructing a public servant? Section 221 BNS. Voluntarily obstructing a public servant in the discharge of his public functions remains punishable with imprisonment of either description up to three months, but the fine cap rises from ₹500 to ₹2,500. Assaulting or using criminal force on a public servant to deter him from duty is a separate offence under Section 132 BNS.

What is the BNS section for disobeying a Section 144 or Section 163 order? Section 223 BNS replaces Section 188 IPC. Disobedience that causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury to a person lawfully employed carries simple imprisonment up to six months, or fine up to ₹2,500, or both; where it causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or a riot or affray, the maximum is one year, or fine up to ₹5,000, or both. Section 188 IPC allowed one month or ₹200, and six months or ₹1,000.

Can the police register an FIR for false information or obstruction? Section 215(1)(a) BNSS bars any Court from taking cognizance of an offence under Sections 206 to 223 BNS (except Section 209) other than on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned, his administrative superior, or a public servant he has authorised. Section 195(1)(a) CrPC imposed the same bar on Sections 172 to 188 IPC, and the Supreme Court held in Saloni Arora that a prosecution under Section 182 IPC without that procedure is void ab initio. Sections 217 to 222 BNS are also non-cognizable.

Are these offences bailable? Yes. Under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Sections 217 to 223 BNS are all bailable and triable by any Magistrate. Sections 217 to 222 are non-cognizable; Section 223 is cognizable. The CrPC First Schedule classified Sections 182 to 188 IPC the same way.

Does obstruction under Section 221 BNS require physical force? Section 221 BNS uses the same words as Section 186 IPC, "voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions". Construing Section 186, the Supreme Court held in Devendra Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) that obstruction is not confined to physical obstruction, need not be an act of criminal force, and is made out if the act prevents a public servant from discharging his lawful duties. On a reading of the text, that analysis bears on Section 221.

Which law applies to conduct before 1 July 2024? Section 358(2) BNS saves penalties incurred under the IPC and lets proceedings be instituted or continued "as if that Code had not been repealed", so on a reading of that text conduct before 1 July 2024 is charged under Sections 182 to 188 IPC. Article 20(1) of the Constitution bars a penalty greater than the law then in force, so, on a reading of that Article, the higher maxima in Sections 217 and 223 BNS cannot be applied to earlier conduct.

Related

• Prohibitory orders: CrPC 144 vs BNSS 163
• Prohibitory orders — Section 144 CrPC is now BNSS 163
• Contempt of lawful authority: IPC 172-180 vs BNS 206-215
• Cognizance by Magistrate: CrPC 190 vs BNSS 210
• Attempt to suicide — IPC 309 dropped, BNS 226
• IPC to BNS master table
• Sections 195, 198 and 198A CrPC vs Sections 215, 219 and 220 BNSS — Restrictions on Prosecution: Complaint by Public Servant, Court or Person Aggrieved

Sources

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 132, 216 to 226 and 358.
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (India Code text): Sections 182 to 190.
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette text): Sections 2(1)(h), 174, 215 and 531, the Section 359 compounding tables, and the First Schedule entries and Explanatory Note (2) for Sections 217 to 223 BNS.
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 195, Section 320 and the First Schedule entries for Sections 182 to 188 IPC.
• Constitution of India: Article 20(1).
• Judgments read in full text: Saloni Arora v. State of NCT of Delhi (2017_1_397_400_EN.md); B.N. John v. State of U.P. (2025_1_12_39_EN.md); Devendra Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2025_8_1095_1136_EN.md).

This page explains the statutory text and the judgments cited as they stand. It is not legal advice; for a specific case, consult an advocate.