Sections 195, 198 and 198A CrPC vs Sections 215, 219 and 220 BNSS — Restrictions on Prosecution: Complaint by Public Servant, Court or Person Aggrieved

In India, Sections 215, 219 and 220 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) replaced Sections 195, 198 and 198A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) on 1 July 2024. The complaint bars remain; a public servant may now authorise another public servant to complain, and BNS Section 209 falls outside the bar.

At a glance

Neighbours not covered here: CrPC 195A → BNSS 216 (a witness or any other person may complain of BNS 232); CrPC 196 → BNSS 217 (offences against the State); CrPC 197 → BNSS 218 (sanction); CrPC 198B → BNSS 221 (BNS 67, complaint by the wife).

BNSS First Schedule: BNS 81 and 83 are non-cognizable and non-bailable; BNS 82(1), 82(2) and 84 non-cognizable and bailable; BNS 85 cognizable only if the information comes from the person aggrieved, a relative by blood, marriage or adoption or (if none) a notified public servant, and non-bailable. The CrPC First Schedule matches for IPC 493, 494, 495, 498 and 498A, but IPC 496 was bailable (its "Ditto" entries trace to the IPC 494 row), whereas BNS 83 is non-bailable.

What changed

Section 195 CrPC → Section 215 BNSS

• Modified — s.215(1)(a)(i), range: "sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code" becomes "sections 206 to 223 (both inclusive but excluding section 209) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023". BNS 206–223 correspond to IPC 172–188, including IPC 174A (non-appearance in response to a proclamation), now BNS 209. IPC 174A (inserted by Act 25 of 2005) fell numerically inside the CrPC range; BNS 209 is expressly excluded.
• Expanded — s.215(1)(a), who may complain: to "the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate" the BNSS adds "or of some other public servant who is authorised by the concerned public servant so to do".
• Minor edit — s.215(1)(b)(i): "sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228" of the IPC becomes "sections 229 to 233 (both inclusive), 236, 237, 242 to 248 (both inclusive) and 267" of the BNS. BNS 229–233 cover IPC 193, 194, 195, 195A and 196, so BNS 232 (IPC 195A, inserted in 2006) is now named expressly; the CrPC text does not say whether "193 to 196" took in IPC 195A.
• Minor edit — s.215(1)(b)(ii): "section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476" becomes "sub-section (1) of section 336, or punishable under sub-section (2) of section 340 or section 342". BNS 342(1) and (2) carry IPC 475 and 476.
• Identical — closing words of s.215(1)(b) (complaint of the Court, its authorised officer or a superior Court; in the CrPC substituted by Act 2 of 2006, w.e.f. 16 April 2006).
• Expanded — s.215(2): a complaint made "by a public servant or by some other public servant who has been authorised to do so by him" may be withdrawn by "any authority to which he is administratively subordinate or who has authorised such public servant". The proviso — no withdrawal once "the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded" — is unchanged.
• Minor edit — s.215(3): a tribunal counts as a "Court" if constituted "by or under a Central or State Act"; the CrPC read "Central, Provincial or State Act".
• Identical — s.215(4) and its proviso on which Court is deemed superior; and the section heading.

Section 198 CrPC → Section 219 BNSS

• Minor edit — s.219(1): "an offence punishable under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code" becomes "an offence punishable under sections 81 to 84 (both inclusive) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023". IPC Chapter XX held Sections 493 to 498; BNS 81 to 84 carry IPC 493, 494–495 (now s.82(1) and (2)), 496 and 498. IPC 497 (adultery) has no BNS counterpart.
• Modified — proviso (a): "under the age of eighteen years, or is an idiot or a lunatic" becomes "a child, or is of unsound mind or is having intellectual disability requiring higher support needs". "Child" takes its BNS meaning (a person below eighteen, BNS s.2(3), applied by BNSS s.2(2)). Whether the new disability wording changes who qualifies is a reading, not text.
• Identical — proviso (b) (husband serving in the Armed Forces).
• Minor edit — proviso (c): "section 494 or section 495" becomes "section 82"; the list of relatives who may complain for the wife is unchanged.
• Narrowed / Omitted — s.219(2): "section 497 or section 498 of the said Code" becomes "section 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023", and the proviso allowing "some person who had care of the woman" on the husband's behalf to complain, with leave, is omitted.
• Minor edit — s.219(3): "a person under the age of eighteen years or of a lunatic" becomes "a child or of a person of unsound mind", with matching changes for the guardian.
• Identical — s.219(4), (5) and (7) (the Commanding Officer's authorisation and certificate; abetment and attempt).
• Minor edit — s.219(6): "section 376 of the Indian Penal Code" becomes "section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023"; the one-year limit where the wife is "under eighteen years of age" is unchanged. (BNS s.63, Exception 2, excludes a man's intercourse with his own wife "not being under eighteen years of age".)

Section 198A CrPC → Section 220 BNSS

• Minor edit: "section 498A of the Indian Penal Code" becomes "section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023", in the text and the heading. The rest — "a police report of facts which constitute such offence" or a complaint by the woman or the listed relatives — is word for word the same.

Statutory text (relevant extract)

Extract, Section 215(1)(a) BNSS:

(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 206 to 223 (both inclusive but excluding section 209) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; or ... 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;

Extract, Section 219(2) BNSS:

(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), no person other than the husband of the woman shall be deemed to be aggrieved by any offence punishable under section 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

How it works

Section 210(1) BNSS allows cognizance on a complaint, a police report or other information; Sections 215, 219 and 220 are exceptions.

1. Offences against public servants' authority (s.215(1)(a)). If the offence is in BNS 206–223 (not 209), or an abetment, attempt or conspiracy to commit one, the court needs a written complaint from the public servant concerned, a superior, or a public servant that officer has authorised. The superior or the authorising officer may withdraw it before the trial of first instance concludes (s.215(2)). The offences are on the IPC 172–180 and IPC 182–188 pages.
2. Public justice and documents in evidence (s.215(1)(b)). Only the Court, its authorised officer or a superior Court can complain; "Court" includes a tribunal declared to be a Court for this section (s.215(3)). The Court acts under Section 379 BNSS (formerly Section 340 CrPC). See the IPC 191–195 page.
3. Marriage offences (s.219). Only a "person aggrieved" may complain of BNS 81 to 84, subject to provisos (a) to (c): others may complain with leave for a child, a person of unsound mind or with intellectual disability requiring higher support needs, a sick or infirm person, or a woman who by local custom ought not to be compelled to appear in public; a serving husband may authorise someone in writing (s.219(4)); the wife's listed relatives may complain of bigamy. For BNS 84 only the husband is aggrieved (s.219(2)).
4. Cruelty (s.220). A police report is enough, or a complaint by the woman or the listed relatives. See IPC 498A vs BNS 85.

Worked example. X disobeys a district official's order and obstructs him; the FIR alleges BNS 221 and 223. The Magistrate cannot take cognizance of those offences on the charge-sheet; a written complaint under s.215(1)(a) is needed. On a reading of the text, if the official has since been transferred, a public servant he authorised may file it.

What this means in practice

• For the public servant: the complaint must be in writing; if another public servant is to file it, s.215(1)(a) requires authorisation by "the concerned public servant". A police report does not substitute for the complaint (Umashankar Yadav, below).
• For the accused: check at the cognizance stage whether any offence charged falls within s.215(1), s.219 or s.220 and whether the right person set the court in motion. C. Muniappan (below) shows the limit: a missing s.195 complaint defeats the s.195 offence, not the other offences charged.
• For a party alleging forgery or perjury connected with a court case: if the offence was committed in court proceedings or on a document after it was produced, apply to that Court under Section 379 BNSS. If the forgery predates production, Iqbal Singh Marwah supports a private complaint.
• For a wife alleging bigamy: the complaint can come from her or the relatives in proviso (c); where cruelty under BNS 85 is alleged in the same case, see Sharat Chandra Sahu (below) and the non-cognizable cases page.

Judgments that still matter

Apart from the changes listed above, Sections 215, 219 and 220 BNSS repeat the CrPC words, so, on a reading of the text, judgments construing those words remain relevant. No Supreme Court judgment construing the new sections was found (see Sources).

Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr., [2005] 2 S.C.R. 708 (11 March 2005; Constitution Bench: R.C. Lahoti CJ, B.N. Agrawal, H.K. Sema, G.P. Mathur and P.K. Balasubramanyan JJ.). A will allegedly forged before it was filed in probate proceedings: the Court held that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC is attracted "only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis" (para 25). Under Section 340 CrPC a Court is not bound to complain; it does so only where the interests of justice require (para 18). The appeal was dismissed and the private complaint allowed to proceed (paras 26–27). Section 215(1)(b)(ii) BNSS repeats the words construed.

C. Muniappan & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, [2010] 10 S.C.R. 262 (2010 INSC 553) (30 August 2010; G.S. Singhvi and B.S. Chauhan JJ.). The Court held that the test is whether the facts disclose "primarily and essentially" an offence needing a complaint of the Court or a public servant, and that the bar cannot be evaded by misdescribing the offence (para 21); that Section 195 is mandatory and a trial without the required complaint is void ab initio (para 25); and that a charge under Section 188 IPC could not be framed without a written complaint, but the absence of a complaint did not falsify the prosecution case on the other charges (para 27). The appeals were dismissed and three death sentences confirmed; in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1632–34 of 2010 sentences were reduced to the period undergone (para 79).

Umashankar Yadav & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1306 (2025 INSC 653) (8 May 2025; P.S. Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi JJ.). Applying the CrPC, the Court held that cognizance of Section 186 IPC (obstructing a public servant; now BNS 221) on a police report was "impermissible in law" under Section 195 (para 32), and that treating the report as a deemed complaint under the Explanation to Section 2(d) does not help, because the fiction deems "the police officer and not the aggrieved public servant" the complainant (para 34). The prosecution was quashed (para 36).

State of Orissa v. Sharat Chandra Sahu and Anr., [1996] Supp. 7 S.C.R. 304 (8 October 1996; Kuldip Singh and S. Saghir Ahmad JJ.). The police charge-sheeted bigamy and cruelty on a complaint the Women's Commission forwarded; the High Court quashed the bigamy charge under Section 198(1) because the wife had not complained personally. The Supreme Court held that, as the cruelty offence was cognizable, Section 155(4) deemed the whole case cognizable and the police could investigate and charge-sheet both offences (paras 9–12), and that the High Court erred in quashing the bigamy charge (para 14). The State's appeal was allowed and the Magistrate directed to proceed (para 15). Section 174(4) BNSS repeats Section 155(4).

Joseph Shine v. Union of India, [2018] 11 S.C.R. 765 (2018 INSC 898) (27 September 2018; Dipak Misra CJI, R.F. Nariman, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra JJ.). All five judges held Section 497 IPC unconstitutional; the four opinions describe the effect on Section 198 CrPC differently. Misra CJI (for himself and Khanwilkar J.) declared Section 198, "which deals with the procedure for filing a complaint in relation to the offence of adultery", unconstitutional (para 56). Nariman J. declared Section 497 IPC and Section 198 CrPC struck down (para 28). Chandrachud J. said the Section 198 procedure would "cease to have any practical relevance" once Section 497 fell (para 37). Malhotra J. held Section 198(2) unconstitutional "only to the extent that it is applicable to the offence of Adultery" (para 18). The writ petition was allowed (Misra CJI, para 58). Section 219(2) BNSS names only BNS 84, consistent with the judgment; see the marriage offences scenario.

Which law applies to your case

Section 531(2)(a) BNSS provides that an appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation pending immediately before 1 July 2024 continues under the CrPC "as if this Sanhita had not come into force". On a reading of that provision, a cognizance question in such a pending matter is decided under the CrPC, and one in a proceeding begun on or after 1 July 2024 under the BNSS; how the BNS 209 exclusion affects non-appearance before that date is not stated in the text. See offence before 1 July 2024 — which law applies.

Frequently asked questions

What is the BNSS equivalent of Section 195 CrPC?

Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 replaced Section 195 CrPC from 1 July 2024. No Court may take cognizance of the listed offences against the lawful authority of public servants except on the written complaint of the public servant concerned, a superior, or a public servant authorised by the one concerned; offences against public justice in court proceedings still need the written complaint of the Court.

Which offences need a public servant's written complaint under Section 215 BNSS?

Section 215(1)(a) BNSS covers Sections 206 to 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, excluding Section 209, together with abetment, attempt and criminal conspiracy. These replace Sections 172 to 188 IPC and include Section 221 (obstructing a public servant) and Section 223 (disobeying an order duly promulgated by a public servant).

Why is BNS Section 209 excluded from Section 215 BNSS?

Section 215(1)(a) BNSS reads 'both inclusive but excluding section 209', so non-appearance in response to a proclamation under Section 84 BNSS no longer needs a public servant's complaint. The BNSS gives no reason for the exclusion. Section 209 BNS is cognizable and non-bailable under the BNSS First Schedule, so on a reading of the text a court can take cognizance on a police report under Section 210(1)(b) BNSS.

Can the police file a charge-sheet for obstructing a public servant?

The police may investigate with a Magistrate's order, but the court cannot take cognizance of Section 221 BNS on the police report alone, because Section 215(1)(a) BNSS requires the written complaint of the public servant concerned. In Umashankar Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) the Supreme Court held under Section 195 CrPC that a police report deemed a complaint does not satisfy this requirement.

Does Section 215 BNSS apply to a forged document produced in court?

Section 215(1)(b)(ii) BNSS requires the Court's complaint for forgery or use of a forged document 'in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court'. A Constitution Bench in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (2005) held that the identical words in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC apply only where the offence was committed after the document was produced, while it was in custodia legis. A forgery committed earlier can be prosecuted on a private complaint.

Who can file a complaint for bigamy under Section 219 BNSS?

Under Section 219(1) BNSS only a person aggrieved by an offence under Sections 81 to 84 BNS may complain. Where the wife is aggrieved by bigamy under Section 82 BNS, her father, mother, brother, sister, son or daughter, her father's or mother's brother or sister, or with the Court's leave any other person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption may complain on her behalf.

What happened to the adultery complaint rule in Section 198 CrPC?

Section 198(2) CrPC made the husband the only person aggrieved by adultery (Section 497 IPC) and enticing a married woman (Section 498 IPC). In Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) the Supreme Court struck down Section 497 IPC and held Section 198 unconstitutional as applied to adultery. Section 219(2) BNSS now names only Section 84 BNS, and the BNS has no adultery offence.

Who can start a prosecution for cruelty under Section 85 BNS?

Section 220 BNSS allows cognizance of Section 85 BNS only on a police report or on a complaint by the woman, her father, mother, brother or sister, her father's or mother's brother or sister, or, with the Court's leave, any other person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption. It repeats Section 198A CrPC with the reference changed from Section 498A IPC.

Related

• IPC 172–180 vs BNS 206–215 — contempt of the lawful authority of public servants
• IPC 182–188 vs BNS — false information, obstruction and disobedience
• IPC 191–195 vs BNS — false evidence
• IPC 494–495 vs BNS 82 — bigamy
• IPC 498 vs BNS 84 — enticing a married woman
• CrPC 155 vs BNSS 174 — non-cognizable cases
• CrPC to BNSS master table
• Sections 493 and 496 IPC vs Sections 81 and 83 BNS — Cohabitation by Deceit and Fraudulent Marriage Ceremony

Sources

• BNSS 2023 (Gazette text): ss.2(2), 210(1), 215–221, 379, 531(2)(a); First Schedule rows for BNS 81–85 and 209.
• BNS 2023 (Gazette text): ss.2(3), 63 Exception 2, 81–86, 206–223, 227–237, 242–248, 267, 336(1), 340, 342 (text or headings).
• CrPC 1973 (India Code original text, with footnotes): ss.195, 195A, 198, 198A, 198B; First Schedule rows for IPC 174A and 493–498A.
• IPC 1860 (India Code original text): Chapter X (172–188), 174A, 195A, Chapter XX (493–498), 498A.
• Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr., [2005] 2 S.C.R. 708 — corpus file 2005_2_708_732_EN.md.
• C. Muniappan & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, [2010] 10 S.C.R. 262 (2010 INSC 553) — corpus file 2010_10_262_318_EN.md.
• Umashankar Yadav & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1306 (2025 INSC 653) — corpus file 2025_5_1306_1315_EN.md.
• State of Orissa v. Sharat Chandra Sahu and Anr., [1996] Supp. 7 S.C.R. 304 — corpus file S_1996_7_304_309_EN.md.
• Joseph Shine v. Union of India, [2018] 11 S.C.R. 765 (2018 INSC 898) — corpus file 2018_11_765_950_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.