Author: Lexfolio Team

Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is now Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). The basic conditions for admitting computer output are the same, but the certificate under Section 63(4) must now be in the form given in the Schedule, in two parts: Part A signed by the person in charge of the device and Part B signed by an expert, with hash values.

Look up any section: type an old or new section number into the free IPC to BNS converter to see its counterpart instantly.

What Section 63 BSA says

Section 63(1): computer output as a document

Information in an electronic record that is printed on paper, or stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media or semiconductor memory, and produced by a “computer or any communication device” or otherwise stored in electronic form, is deemed to be a document. If the conditions of the section are met, it is admissible without further proof or production of the original.

Section 63(2): four conditions

• the output was produced while the device was regularly used to store or process information for activities regularly carried on by the person in lawful control of it;
• information of that kind was regularly fed into the device in the ordinary course of those activities;
• throughout the material period the device was operating properly, or any malfunction did not affect the record or its accuracy; and
• the record reproduces, or is derived from, information fed in during the ordinary course of those activities.

Section 63(3): combinations of devices

Where several devices were used, whether standalone, in a computer system or network, through a computer resource or an intermediary, they are treated as a single device.

Section 63(4): the certificate

Wherever an electronic record is produced for admission, a certificate must be submitted along with it “at each instance”. It must identify the record and how it was produced, give particulars of the devices involved, and deal with the conditions in Section 63(2). It is signed by a person in charge of the device or the relevant activities, “and an expert”, and statements may be made to the best of the signatory’s knowledge and belief.

The Schedule certificate: Part A and Part B

• Part A is filled by the party producing the record. It identifies the record and the device used, states who was in lawful control of it, confirms the Section 63(2) conditions and records the hash value of the record.
• Part B is “to be filled by the expert”. The expert confirms the hash value and the algorithm used (for example SHA-256 or MD5). A hash is a unique code generated from the file; any change in the file changes the hash, so it proves integrity.

In Pune Bar Association v. Union of India (W.P. (C) No. 599 of 2026), reported on 28 May 2026, a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant upheld Section 63(4) against a challenge of manifest arbitrariness. It held that Part B can be signed not only by an Examiner of Electronic Evidence notified under Section 79A of the IT Act but also by any person the court is satisfied has special skill in computer science and cyber forensics, since Section 39(2) BSA does not exclude Section 39(1).

What changed from Section 65B

• Prescribed format: Section 65B(4) had no fixed form. The BSA Schedule now fixes one, in two parts.
• Expert signature added: the words “and an expert” are new. Under 65B, only the responsible official signed.
• Hash value: integrity is now shown through a hash in the certificate itself.
• Wider device language: “communication device” and semiconductor memory are expressly covered, which settles doubts about mobile phones and pen drives.
• “At each instance”: a certificate must accompany the record each time it is submitted.
• Primary evidence widened: Section 57 BSA adds Explanations treating an electronic record from proper custody as primary evidence “unless it is disputed”, and treating each file, each stored video recording and each automated storage instance (including temporary files) as primary evidence.
• Section 61 BSA: an electronic record cannot be denied admissibility merely because it is electronic, and has the same legal effect as other documents, subject to Section 63.

Important case law

Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473

A three-judge bench held that Sections 65A and 65B form a complete code for electronic evidence. A secondary copy of an electronic record (such as a CD) is inadmissible without a Section 65B(4) certificate. It overruled the contrary view in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) on this point.

Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018)

A two-judge bench relaxed the rule, saying the certificate was procedural and could be dispensed with where the party was not in possession of the device. This created a conflict.

Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1

Decided on 14 July 2020 by Justices R.F. Nariman, S. Ravindra Bhat and V. Ramasubramanian. The Court held:

• the certificate is a condition precedent to admissibility of electronic evidence; Anvar P.V. is correct law and Shafhi Mohammad is overruled;
• no certificate is needed if the original device is produced, for example when the owner of a phone or laptop steps into the witness box and proves it;
• where a certificate is demanded and refused, the party can apply to the court to direct its production;
• the certificate can be produced at a later stage of trial, provided the accused is not prejudiced;
• telecom and internet providers were directed to preserve call detail records seized in investigation.

These principles continue to guide courts under Section 63 BSA, since the core structure of the provision is the same.

Common confusions

Original device vs copy

If the original phone or hard disk is produced and proved, it is primary evidence. A printout, CD, pen drive or screenshot is computer output and needs the Section 63(4) certificate.

Admissibility vs proof of truth

A certificate makes the record admissible. Its reliability, and whether it was tampered with, is still for the court to weigh.

For the general public: using WhatsApp chats, emails or CCTV in court

• Do not delete or forward-edit the original; keep the device safe, since the original device is the best evidence.
• Export chats or download footage, and record the date, device and method used.
• Prepare the Schedule certificate: Part A signed by you (or the person in charge of the device) and Part B by a cyber forensic expert, both mentioning the same hash value.
• File the certificate along with the record. If an organisation (bank, telecom company, housing society for CCTV) holds the data, ask it in writing for a certificate; if it refuses, apply to the court for a direction.
• For CCTV, ask for preservation quickly, as many systems overwrite footage within days.

Exam angle

• 65A = 62 BSA; 65B = 63 BSA; 45A = 39(2) BSA.
• Certificate now has a fixed form in the Schedule with Part A and Part B and a hash value.
• Anvar P.V. (2014) 10 SCC 473 and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (2020) 7 SCC 1 are the leading cases; Shafhi Mohammad was overruled.
• No certificate needed when the original device itself is produced.
• Section 57 BSA Explanations make electronic records from proper custody primary evidence unless disputed.

Frequently asked questions

What is the new section for 65B Evidence Act?

Section 65B is now Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, in force from 1 July 2024.

Is the 65B certificate still mandatory under BSA?

Yes. A certificate under Section 63(4) in the Schedule form must accompany the electronic record at each instance it is submitted, unless the original device is itself produced and proved.

Who signs the Section 63 certificate?

Part A is signed by the party or the person in charge of the device, and Part B by an expert. The Supreme Court in 2026 accepted that a person with proven expertise in computer science and cyber forensics can sign Part B.

Are WhatsApp chats admissible without a certificate?

Screenshots or printouts need a Section 63(4) certificate. If the phone itself is produced and proved by its owner, a certificate is not required.

Can the certificate be filed later?

Yes. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar allows a later production during trial, so long as it does not cause prejudice to the other side.

Quick quiz

Sources

• Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Sections 39, 57, 61, 62, 63 and the Schedule (India Code)
• Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473
• Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1
• Pune Bar Association v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 599 of 2026, Supreme Court of India

This page is for education and general information, not legal advice for a specific case.

Section 509 IPC is now Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). Any word, sound, gesture, object shown, or intrusion upon privacy intended to insult the modesty of a woman is punishable with simple imprisonment up to three years and fine. The offence is cognizable, bailable and compoundable by the woman with the court’s permission.

Look up any section: type an old or new section number into the free IPC to BNS converter to see its counterpart instantly.

What Section 79 BNS says

Section 79 punishes a person who, intending to insult the modesty of a woman, does any of the following:

• utters any words or makes any sound, intending that she hears it;
• makes any gesture, intending that she sees it;
• exhibits any object “in any form”, intending that she sees it; or
• intrudes upon her privacy.

No physical contact is needed. This is what separates it from Section 74, which needs assault or criminal force.

Ingredients

1. The victim is a woman.
2. The accused uttered words, made a sound or gesture, exhibited an object, or intruded upon her privacy.
3. The accused intended to insult her modesty.
4. The words or sounds were meant to be heard, or the gesture or object meant to be seen, by her.

Intention is the key. A remark not aimed at the woman, or made without any intent to insult her modesty, will not satisfy the section. Courts look at the words used, the context, the place and the conduct of the accused.

What changed from the IPC

The punishment is the same as under Section 509 IPC: simple imprisonment up to three years, and fine. The classification is also unchanged.

The one textual change is the phrase “in any form” after “exhibits any object”. This makes clear that the object need not be physical. Images, videos or material shown through a screen or sent digitally fit more comfortably within the provision.

Section 79 and online conduct

Insulting messages, obscene images or videos sent to a woman can attract Section 79, depending on the content and intent. The same facts may also attract the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for example, Sections 66E and 67) and, where the conduct is repeated monitoring or contact, stalking under Section 78 BNS. The police decide the sections on the facts; the complainant only needs to state what happened.

Important case law

• Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (1995): a senior police officer’s conduct towards a woman officer at a social gathering led to charges under Sections 354 and 509 IPC. The Supreme Court refused to quash the case and stressed that the test of modesty is whether the act is an affront to a woman’s sense of decency judged by common notions.

Common confusions

• Section 79 vs Section 74: Section 79 involves no physical force; Section 74 needs assault or criminal force.
• Section 79 vs Section 75(1)(iv): sexually coloured remarks by a man are sexual harassment under Section 75 (up to one year). Section 79 is wider in form (words, sounds, gestures, objects, privacy) and carries up to three years, but needs intent to insult modesty.
• Section 79 vs Section 296: obscene acts or songs in a public place, causing annoyance to others, fall under Section 296 BNS (old 294 IPC). Section 79 is about a specific woman’s modesty.
• Bailable but cognizable: the police can register an FIR and arrest without warrant, but the accused is entitled to bail.

Practical guidance for the public

• File the complaint at the nearest police station. Under the proviso to Section 173(1) BNSS, it is recorded by a woman police officer or woman officer.
• Keep evidence: screenshots with dates, the sender’s number or profile, names of witnesses, and the place and time.
• For online incidents, a complaint can also be lodged on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (cybercrime.gov.in) or through the helpline 1930.
• Because the offence is compoundable only with the court’s permission, any settlement has to be placed before the court.

Exam angle

• 509 IPC to 79 BNS; punishment is simple imprisonment up to three years and fine (fine is mandatory, “and also with fine”).
• New words: “in any form” after “exhibits any object”.
• Compoundable by the woman, with the court’s permission (Table 2 of Section 359 BNSS).
• Cognizable, bailable, triable by any Magistrate.

Frequently asked questions

What is the new section for 509 IPC?

Section 509 IPC is now Section 79 of the BNS.

Is Section 79 BNS bailable?

Yes. It is bailable and cognizable, and triable by any Magistrate.

Can a Section 79 BNS case be compromised?

Yes, but only by the woman concerned and with the permission of the court where the case is pending.

What is the punishment under Section 79 BNS?

Simple imprisonment up to three years and fine.

Does Section 79 BNS apply to obscene messages on WhatsApp?

It can, if the message was sent with intent to insult the woman’s modesty. The IT Act may also apply on the same facts.

Quick quiz

Sources

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 79 (and Sections 74, 75, 78, 296)
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Sections 173 and 359, and First Schedule
• Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (Supreme Court, 1995)
• National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (cybercrime.gov.in)

This page is for education and general information, not legal advice for a specific case.

Section 504 IPC is now Section 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). Intentionally insulting a person, and thereby provoking him, intending or knowing that the provocation is likely to make him break the public peace or commit another offence, is punishable with imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both. The offence is non-cognizable, bailable and compoundable by the person insulted.

Look up any section: type an old or new section number into the free IPC to BNS converter to see its counterpart instantly.

What Section 352 BNS says

The section opens with the words “Whoever intentionally insults in any manner, and thereby gives provocation to any person”. The insult must be one that the accused intends, or knows is likely, to make the other person break the public peace or commit some other offence.

Ingredients

1. Intentional insult: the accused deliberately insulted the complainant. An accidental or careless remark is not enough.
2. Provocation: the insult was of a kind that gives provocation to the person insulted.
3. Intent or knowledge: the accused intended, or knew it was likely, that the provocation would cause the person to break the public peace or commit another offence.

The law does not require that the peace was actually broken. What matters is the nature of the insult and the accused’s state of mind.

What changed from the IPC

The punishment and classification are the same as under Section 504 IPC. The only textual change is the addition of the words “in any manner” after “intentionally insults”. This confirms that the insult can be by words, conduct, writing or electronic means.

Do not confuse the number with the old Section 352 IPC, which punished assault or criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation. That offence is now Section 131 BNS. Section 352 BNS is a completely different offence.

Section 352 and criminal intimidation

FIRs under the IPC often read “Sections 504 and 506”. Under the BNS, the equivalent pair is Sections 352 and 351. Section 351 BNS is criminal intimidation (old 503 and 506 IPC). Section 353 BNS covers statements conducing to public mischief (old 505 IPC).

Important case law

• Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra (2013): the Supreme Court set out the three ingredients of Section 504 IPC and said that merely abusing a person is not by itself enough for conviction. It also held that the complaint need not reproduce the exact words used; the court reads the complaint as a whole, with its background and circumstances.
• B.V. Ram Kumar v. State of Telangana (2025 INSC 194): a senior’s reprimand of a subordinate at the workplace, concerning discipline and duties, was held not to be an intentional insult with intent to provoke. The insult must be of such a degree that a person would be provoked to break the peace or commit an offence. The proceedings were quashed.

Common confusions

• Abuse alone is not Section 352: rude or abusive words, without the intent or knowledge about breach of peace, do not complete the offence.
• Non-cognizable: the police cannot investigate without a Magistrate’s order. Usually the complaint is entered in the non-cognizable register, or a complaint is filed directly before the Magistrate.
• Insult must be to the complainant: the provocation must be given to the person insulted, not to a bystander.
• Section 352 BNS vs Section 79 BNS: where the insult is aimed at a woman’s modesty, Section 79 applies, which is cognizable and carries up to three years.

Practical guidance for the public

• As the offence is non-cognizable, the police will usually record the information and refer the complainant to the Magistrate (Section 174 BNSS). The complainant can also file a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate.
• Note the date, place, exact words if possible, and names of witnesses. Keep recordings or messages.
• If the same incident involves threats, hurt or other cognizable offences, those are investigated by the police in the normal way.
• The offence can be settled by the person insulted without the court’s permission, which often ends neighbourhood or family disputes.

Exam angle

• 504 IPC to 352 BNS; 503/506 IPC to 351 BNS; 505 IPC to 353 BNS.
• Old 352 IPC (assault) is now 131 BNS; a favourite trap question.
• New words: “in any manner”.
• Non-cognizable, bailable, compoundable without permission, triable by any Magistrate; punishment up to two years, or fine, or both.

Frequently asked questions

What is the new section for 504 IPC?

Section 504 IPC is now Section 352 of the BNS.

Is Section 352 BNS bailable?

Yes. It is bailable and non-cognizable.

What is the new section for 504 and 506 IPC?

Section 504 IPC is Section 352 BNS, and Section 506 IPC (criminal intimidation) is Section 351 BNS.

Can a Section 352 BNS case be compromised?

Yes. The person insulted can compound it without the court’s permission.

Is abusing someone an offence under Section 352 BNS?

Only if the abuse is an intentional insult meant, or known to be likely, to provoke breach of the peace or another offence. Mere abuse is not enough.

Quick quiz

Sources

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 351, 352 and 353
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Sections 174 and 359, and First Schedule
• Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra (Supreme Court, 2013)
• B.V. Ram Kumar v. State of Telangana, 2025 INSC 194

This page is for education and general information, not legal advice for a specific case.

Sections 499 and 500 IPC are now Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). Section 356(1) defines defamation and Section 356(2) punishes it with simple imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both, or community service. Community service is the new option introduced by the BNS.

Look up any section: type an old or new section number into the free IPC to BNS converter to see its counterpart instantly.

What Section 356 BNS says

Under Section 356(1), a person commits defamation when, by spoken or written words, signs or visible representations, he makes or publishes an imputation about another person, intending to harm that person’s reputation, or knowing or having reason to believe that it will harm it.

Ingredients

1. An imputation about a person (including a company, association or group).
2. It is made or published, that is, communicated to someone other than the person defamed.
3. It is made with intent to harm, or knowledge or reason to believe it will harm, that person’s reputation.

The explanations in brief

• An imputation about a dead person can be defamation if it would have harmed him if living and is meant to hurt his family.
• A company, association or collection of persons can be defamed.
• An imputation made ironically or as an alternative can be defamatory.
• Harm to reputation means lowering the person’s moral or intellectual character, standing in caste or calling, or credit, in the estimation of others.

The ten exceptions

1. Truth of an imputation, if publication is for the public good.
2. Good faith opinion on the public conduct of a public servant.
3. Good faith opinion on any person’s conduct touching a public question.
4. Substantially true reports of court proceedings.
5. Good faith opinion on the merits of a decided case, or the conduct of parties, witnesses or agents in it.
6. Good faith opinion on a work submitted to public judgment, such as a book or performance.
7. Censure in good faith by a person with lawful authority over another.
8. Accusation in good faith to a person with lawful authority, such as a complaint to the police.
9. Imputation in good faith to protect one’s own or another’s interest, or for the public good.
10. Caution given in good faith for the good of the person cautioned or the public.

Note that truth alone is not a defence under Exception 1. The publication must also be for the public good.

What changed from the IPC

• Four IPC sections (499 to 502) are merged into one section with four sub-sections.
• Community service is now a punishment option under Section 356(2). Section 4(f) BNS lists community service as a form of punishment, but the BNS does not lay down how much or what kind of service a court should order.
• The definition, explanations and ten exceptions remain substantially the same.

Procedure under the BNSS

• Who can complain: Section 222 BNSS (old 199 CrPC) allows a court to take cognizance only on a complaint by the person aggrieved. Others may complain on behalf of a child, a person of unsound mind, or a person who is sick or infirm, with the court’s leave.
• High functionaries: for defamation of the President, Vice-President, a Governor, a Union territory Administrator, a Minister or a public servant in respect of public functions, the Public Prosecutor may file a written complaint directly in the Court of Session, with prior sanction, within six months of the offence.
• Hearing before cognizance: under the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS, the Magistrate cannot take cognizance on a complaint without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard. This is a new safeguard and applies to defamation complaints.

Important case law

• Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016): decided on 13 May 2016 by Justices Dipak Misra and P.C. Pant. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 499 and 500 IPC and Section 199 CrPC. It held that reputation is part of the right to life under Article 21, that criminal defamation is a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2), and that free speech must be balanced against the reputation of individuals. The reasoning carries over to Section 356 BNS, as the provision is substantially the same.

Common confusions

• Civil vs criminal defamation: a civil suit seeks damages; a criminal complaint under Section 356 seeks punishment. Both can be pursued on the same facts.
• Police FIR: defamation is non-cognizable, and Section 222 BNSS requires a complaint by the aggrieved person. Ordinarily the remedy is a complaint before the Magistrate, not an FIR.
• Section 356 vs Section 352: defamation is about harm to reputation in the eyes of others; Section 352 is about an insult meant to provoke breach of peace.

Practical guidance for the public

• Collect proof of the publication: screenshots with URL and date, copies of the newspaper or post, and witnesses who heard or read the statement.
• A legal notice is commonly sent first, though it is not legally required for a criminal complaint.
• File the complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of the first class with jurisdiction. The court will hear the accused before taking cognizance, then record evidence and decide whether to summon.
• The case can be settled at any stage by the person defamed (with court permission in Public Prosecutor cases).

Exam angle

• 499 to 356(1), 500 to 356(2), 501 to 356(3), 502 to 356(4).
• Community service: available under 356(2) only, not 356(3) or (4).
• Ten exceptions; Exception 1 requires truth plus public good.
• Subramanian Swamy (2016): criminal defamation upheld; reputation is part of Article 21.
• Procedure: Section 222 BNSS (old 199 CrPC) and the hearing proviso in Section 223 BNSS.

Frequently asked questions

What is the new section for 499 and 500 IPC?

Both are now in Section 356 BNS: the definition in 356(1) and the punishment in 356(2).

What is the punishment for defamation under BNS?

Simple imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both, or community service.

Is defamation bailable under BNS?

Yes. It is bailable and non-cognizable.

Can police register an FIR for defamation?

Ordinarily no. It is non-cognizable and cognizance is taken on a complaint by the person aggrieved under Section 222 BNSS.

Is truth a defence to defamation?

Only if the imputation is true and its publication is for the public good (Exception 1).

Is criminal defamation constitutional in India?

Yes. The Supreme Court upheld it in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016).

Quick quiz

Sources

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 4 and 356
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Sections 222, 223 and 359, and First Schedule
• Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (Supreme Court, 13 May 2016)
• Supreme Court Observer, case summary of Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India

This page is for education and general information, not legal advice for a specific case.

Section 482 of the CrPC (saving of inherent powers of the High Court) is now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), from 1 July 2024. The wording is the same, so a High Court can still quash an FIR, complaint or criminal proceeding to prevent abuse of the process of court or to secure the ends of justice. All the case law under Section 482, including Bhajan Lal, continues to apply.

Look up any section: type an old or new section number into the free IPC to BNS converter to see its counterpart instantly.

What Section 528 BNSS says

The section is a single sentence. It opens with “Nothing in this Sanhita shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court” and then names three purposes for which those powers may be used. It does not create a new power. It only recognises that a High Court, as a superior court, has always had inherent authority to do real justice where the written procedure is silent or is being misused.

In practice the section is used mostly for quashing. Typical petitions ask the High Court to quash an FIR, a charge-sheet, a summoning order, or the entire criminal case. It is also used to set aside orders that cause injustice where no other remedy exists, and to give effect to compromises in suitable cases.

What changed from Section 482 CrPC

Nothing of substance. The only textual change is that “this Code” has become “this Sanhita”. The section numbering changed because the BNSS reorganised the chapters. Petitions filed on or after 1 July 2024 are filed under Section 528 BNSS; petitions pending on that date continue under Section 482 CrPC because of the saving clause in Section 531 BNSS.

Students should note one trap: Section 482 still exists in the BNSS, but it now deals with anticipatory bail (old Section 438 CrPC).

Important case law

State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992)

Decided on 21 November 1990 and reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, this is the leading case on quashing. The Supreme Court gave seven illustrative categories where an FIR or proceeding may be quashed:

1. The allegations, even if taken at face value and accepted in full, do not make out any offence.
2. The allegations and materials do not disclose a cognizable offence justifying police investigation without a Magistrate’s order.
3. The uncontroverted allegations and the evidence collected do not disclose any offence.
4. The allegations make out only a non-cognizable offence, and the police investigated without a Magistrate’s order.
5. The allegations are so absurd or inherently improbable that no prudent person could find sufficient ground to proceed.
6. There is an express legal bar against starting or continuing the proceedings, or the statute gives a specific remedy.
7. The proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides or was instituted maliciously to wreak vengeance.

The Court added a caution that the power must be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. The list is illustrative, not exhaustive.

Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012)

A three-judge bench held that the High Court can quash even non-compoundable offences on the basis of a genuine settlement where the dispute is essentially private, such as commercial, matrimonial or family disputes. Serious offences such as murder, rape and dacoity, and offences affecting society at large, are not to be quashed on compromise.

Common confusions

• Section 528 vs Article 226: Quashing can be sought under either. Many High Courts hear FIR-quashing under Section 528 BNSS, while challenges involving fundamental rights or public law issues may go under Article 226. The tests applied are largely the same.
• Section 528 vs revision: Where the BNSS gives a specific remedy (appeal or revision), the High Court generally expects that remedy to be used first. Inherent power fills gaps; it does not replace express provisions.
• Sessions Court: No court other than the High Court has inherent power under this section.

Practical guide for the public

A petition under Section 528 is filed before the High Court that has territorial jurisdiction over the police station or court where the case is pending. Common situations are a false FIR arising from a civil or money dispute, a matrimonial case after settlement, or a summoning order passed without any material.

Documents generally needed: certified or true copy of the FIR, charge-sheet or complaint, the impugned order (such as the summoning order), any settlement deed and affidavits of both parties (for compromise cases), documents that show the case is civil or malicious, and an affidavit supporting the petition. In compromise cases, the High Court often requires the parties to appear or file affidavits so it can confirm the settlement is voluntary.

Filing a quashing petition does not by itself stop the investigation or trial. Interim protection depends on a specific order of the High Court.

Exam angle

• Section 482 CrPC = Section 528 BNSS. Section 482 BNSS = anticipatory bail.
• Only the High Court has this power; the three purposes are frequently asked word by word.
• Bhajan Lal: seven categories; decided in 1990, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.
• Gian Singh (2012): quashing on compromise is possible for private disputes, not for heinous or society-wide offences.

Frequently asked questions

What is the new section for 482 CrPC under BNSS?

Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 now contains the High Court’s inherent powers, with the same wording as Section 482 CrPC.

Can an FIR be quashed under Section 528 BNSS?

Yes. The High Court can quash an FIR if the case falls within principles like those in Bhajan Lal, such as no offence being disclosed or the case being malicious.

Can a criminal case be quashed after compromise?

Yes, for disputes that are essentially private, as held in Gian Singh (2012). Heinous offences and offences against society are not quashed merely because the parties have settled.

Is there a time limit for filing a Section 528 petition?

No limitation period is fixed by the statute, but long unexplained delay can lead the High Court to refuse relief.

Can the Sessions Court quash an FIR?

No. Inherent power under Section 528 BNSS belongs only to the High Court.

Quick quiz

Sources

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Sections 528 and 531
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 482
• State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
• Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Supreme Court, 2012

This page is for education and general information, not legal advice for a specific case.

Section 41 CrPC (arrest without warrant) and Section 41A CrPC (notice of appearance) have been merged into Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), from 1 July 2024. The power to arrest is in Section 35(1), the notice of appearance is in Section 35(3) to (6), and a new Section 35(7) needs a DSP’s prior permission to arrest an infirm person or a person above sixty for an offence punishable with less than three years.

Look up any section: type an old or new section number into the free IPC to BNS converter to see its counterpart instantly.

What Section 35 BNSS provides

Arrest without warrant: Section 35(1)

Section 35(1) lists situations where police can arrest without a Magistrate’s order or warrant. The main ones are: a cognizable offence committed in the officer’s presence; a cognizable offence punishable with up to seven years, subject to clause (b); a cognizable offence punishable with more than seven years or death, on credible information; a proclaimed offender; possession of suspected stolen property; and obstructing police or escaping from lawful custody.

Clause (b) is the heart of the arrest-protection scheme. For offences punishable with up to seven years, two things are needed. First, the officer must have reason to believe the person committed the offence. Second, arrest must be necessary for one of the stated purposes: to prevent further offences, for proper investigation, to prevent tampering with evidence, to prevent threats or inducement to witnesses, or to secure the person’s presence in court. The officer must record reasons in writing for arresting, and also for not arresting.

Notice of appearance: Section 35(3) to (6)

Where arrest is not required under Section 35(1), the officer must issue a notice directing the person to appear before him or at a specified place. The person must comply. So long as he complies, he cannot be arrested for that offence unless the officer records reasons for believing arrest is necessary. If he fails to comply or refuses to identify himself, the officer may arrest him, subject to any court order.

Old and infirm persons: Section 35(7)

This is new. For an offence punishable with less than three years, an infirm person or a person above sixty years cannot be arrested without the prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.

What changed from Sections 41 and 41A CrPC

• Merger: The two sections are combined. Old Section 41A is now Section 35(3) to (6).
• New Section 35(7): The DSP-permission rule for the elderly and the infirm had no equivalent in Section 41 CrPC.
• No electronic notice: The BNSS allows electronic modes for many steps, but the Supreme Court has held that Section 35 notices cannot be served through WhatsApp or other electronic means.

Important case law

Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014)

Arising from a Section 498A IPC case, the Supreme Court held that police must not arrest automatically in offences punishable with up to seven years. It directed that police use a checklist of the necessity conditions and forward it, with reasons and materials, to the Magistrate. The Magistrate must record his own satisfaction before authorising detention. Non-compliance exposes police officers to departmental action and contempt.

Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022)

Decided on 11 July 2022, this case divided offences into categories for bail. For offences punishable with up to seven years (Category A), it held that the process should move from summons to warrants, and that non-compliance with Sections 41 and 41A by the police entitles the accused to bail.

Satender Kumar Antil orders on electronic service (2025)

By an order of 21 January 2025, the Supreme Court held that notices under Section 41A CrPC and Section 35 BNSS cannot be served through WhatsApp or other electronic modes. In July 2025 it rejected Haryana’s plea to modify this, because the notice affects personal liberty under Article 21.

Common confusions

• Notice is not immunity: A notice under Section 35(3) protects only while you comply. Missing the date can lead to arrest under Section 35(6).
• “Above sixty” rule: Section 35(7) is limited to offences punishable with less than three years.

Practical guide for the public

If police contact you in an offence punishable with seven years or less, ask whether a written notice under Section 35(3) BNSS is being issued. Attend on the date with the notice and identity proof. If you cannot attend, write to the officer in advance and keep proof.

If you are arrested despite complying, or without reasons recorded, the point can be raised before the Magistrate at first production (within 24 hours of arrest) to oppose remand and seek bail. If you are above sixty or infirm and the offence carries less than three years, ask whether DSP permission was taken.

Exam angle

• Section 41 + 41A CrPC = Section 35 BNSS; notice of appearance is in Section 35(3).
• Section 35(7): less than three years offence, infirm or above sixty, DSP-level prior permission. A new provision.
• Arnesh Kumar (2014) governs arrests in offences up to seven years; it arose from a Section 498A IPC case.
• Satender Kumar Antil (2022) created Categories A to D for bail and linked non-compliance with 41/41A to bail.
• Electronic service of a Section 35 notice is not valid (Supreme Court, 2025).

Frequently asked questions

What is the new section for 41A CrPC notice?

The notice of appearance under old Section 41A CrPC is now in Section 35(3) to (6) of the BNSS, 2023.

Can police arrest me after giving a Section 35 notice?

Only if you fail to comply or refuse to identify yourself, or if the officer records reasons showing that arrest is necessary despite your compliance.

Can police send a Section 35 notice on WhatsApp?

No. The Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (orders of January and July 2025) held that electronic service of these notices is not valid.

Can a person above 60 years be arrested?

Yes, but if the offence is punishable with less than three years, police need the prior permission of an officer not below DSP rank under Section 35(7) BNSS.

Quick quiz

Sources

• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Section 35
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 41 and 41A
• Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273
• Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, Supreme Court, 11 July 2022, and orders of 21 January 2025 and July 2025

This page is for education and general information, not legal advice for a specific case.

Section 392 IPC (punishment for robbery) is now Section 309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Section 395 IPC (punishment for dacoity) is now Section 310(2) BNS. Robbery is defined in Section 309 and dacoity in Section 310. The punishments are largely the same as before, with one important change for dacoity with murder.

Look up any section: type an old or new section number into the free IPC to BNS converter to see its counterpart instantly.

Robbery under Section 309 BNS

Section 309(1) says that in all robbery there is either theft or extortion. Robbery is therefore an aggravated form of one of these two offences.

When theft becomes robbery: Section 309(2)

Theft becomes robbery if, in order to commit the theft, while committing it, or while carrying away or attempting to carry away the stolen property, the offender voluntarily causes or attempts to cause death, hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death, instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint. The violence must be for the purpose of the theft, not an unrelated scuffle.

When extortion becomes robbery: Section 309(3)

Extortion becomes robbery if the offender is in the presence of the victim, puts the victim in fear of instant death, instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint, and by that fear induces the victim to deliver the property then and there.

Punishments within Section 309

• 309(4): robbery, rigorous imprisonment up to 10 years and fine; if committed on a highway between sunset and sunrise, up to 14 years (old 392).
• 309(5): attempt to commit robbery, rigorous imprisonment up to 7 years and fine (old 393).
• 309(6): voluntarily causing hurt while committing or attempting robbery, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment up to 10 years and fine. This applies to the person who causes hurt and to every other person jointly concerned (old 394).

Dacoity under Section 310 BNS

When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit robbery, or where the persons committing or attempting it and those present and aiding it together number five or more, every such person commits dacoity. The number five is the defining feature.

• 310(2): dacoity, life imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment up to 10 years and fine (old 395).
• 310(3): dacoity with murder, where any one of the five or more commits murder in the course of dacoity: every one of them is punishable with death, life imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment of not less than 10 years, and fine (old 396).
• 310(4): preparation to commit dacoity, rigorous imprisonment up to 10 years and fine (old 399).
• 310(5): being one of five or more persons assembled to commit dacoity, rigorous imprisonment up to 7 years and fine (old 402).
• 310(6): belonging to a gang of persons associated for habitually committing dacoity, life imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment up to 10 years and fine (old 400).

Full mapping: old IPC to new BNS

What changed from the IPC

• Dacoity with murder: under Section 396 IPC, the third option was rigorous imprisonment that “may extend to ten years”. Section 310(3) BNS makes it rigorous imprisonment “not less than ten years”. The ceiling became a floor, so a sentence below ten years is no longer possible.
• Consolidation: thirteen IPC sections (390 to 402) are now Sections 309 to 313.
• New companion offences: the BNS also introduced Section 304 (snatching) and Section 112 (petty organised crime). Snatching was earlier prosecuted as theft or robbery depending on the facts.
• Other punishments: the punishments for robbery, attempt, hurt in robbery, dacoity, preparation, assembling and gang membership are unchanged in substance.

Important case law

Raj Kumar alias Raju v. State of Uttaranchal (2008) 11 SCC 709

For a dacoity conviction, the court must find that five or more persons took part. If five or more were clearly involved but some could not be identified, even fewer than five, or one, can be convicted. Without that finding, fewer than five persons cannot be convicted of dacoity.

Phool Kumar v. Delhi Administration (1975) 1 SCC 797

For the old Section 397 (now Section 311), the offender “uses” a deadly weapon even when he only displays it to frighten the victim. Actual striking is not needed.

Ashfaq v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2004) 3 SCC 116

The Court relied on Phool Kumar and held that being armed with a deadly weapon within the victim’s sight, enough to create terror, satisfies the requirement. A knife can be a deadly weapon for this purpose.

Common confusions

Robbery vs dacoity

The only structural difference is the number of persons. Fewer than five: robbery. Five or more (counting those present and aiding): dacoity.

Robbery vs snatching

Snatching under Section 304 BNS is sudden, quick or forcible seizure of movable property. If the offender also causes or attempts hurt or wrongful restraint, or creates instant fear, it moves into robbery under Section 309.

Hurt in robbery: who is liable

Under Section 309(6), the person who causes hurt and every person jointly concerned in the robbery are liable. Under Section 311, the minimum seven year sentence applies to the offender who actually uses the weapon or causes the grievous hurt.

For the general public: what to do

• Go to the nearest police station or dial 112 immediately. Robbery and dacoity are cognizable, so an FIR must be registered. A zero FIR can be lodged at any station.
• Note descriptions of the persons, vehicles, direction of escape and time. Do not disturb the scene.
• Block stolen cards and SIMs at once and keep the reference numbers. For a stolen phone, report on the CEIR portal (ceir.gov.in) with the FIR copy.
• Get a medical examination done if you were hurt; it supports charges under Section 309(6) or 311.
• Collect a free copy of the FIR, which the BNSS entitles you to.

Exam angle

• 392 IPC = 309(4); 395 IPC = 310(2); 397 = 311; 401 = 313.
• Section 310(3): “not less than ten years” replaced “may extend to ten years”. A favourite change question.
• Highway robbery between sunset and sunrise: up to 14 years under Section 309(4).
• Robbery is triable by a Magistrate of the first class; dacoity by the Court of Session.
• Raj Kumar (2008): fewer than five can be convicted only if the court finds five or more participated.

Frequently asked questions

What is the new section for 392 IPC?

Section 392 IPC is now Section 309(4) BNS. It punishes robbery with rigorous imprisonment up to ten years and fine, extendable to fourteen years for highway robbery at night.

What is the new section for 395 IPC?

Section 395 IPC is now Section 310(2) BNS, with life imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment up to ten years and fine.

Is robbery bailable under BNS?

No. Robbery under Section 309 and dacoity under Section 310 are cognizable and non-bailable, so bail is at the court’s discretion.

What is the new section for 397 IPC?

Section 397 IPC is now Section 311 BNS, which prescribes a minimum of seven years when the offender uses a deadly weapon, causes grievous hurt, or attempts death or grievous hurt during robbery or dacoity.

How many people are needed for dacoity?

Five or more persons, counting those who commit or attempt the robbery and those present and aiding it.

Quick quiz

Sources

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 309 to 313 (India Code)
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, First Schedule
• Raj Kumar alias Raju v. State of Uttaranchal (2008) 11 SCC 709
• Phool Kumar v. Delhi Administration (1975) 1 SCC 797; Ashfaq v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2004) 3 SCC 116

This page is for education and general information, not legal advice for a specific case.