Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Sections 196 and 197 of BNS - These sections pertain to the procedures and conditions under which certain offences can be prosecuted without prior sanction. Section 196 deals with the requirement of prior sanction for prosecution of public servants, while Section 197 pertains to sanction for proceeding against judges, magistrates, and public servants in respect of acts done in official capacity. Several cases highlight that for offences under Sections 196 and 197, the existence or absence of prior sanction is crucial, and courts examine whether the allegations meet the essential ingredients of these sections before proceeding Sources: Imran Pratapgadhi VS State of Gujarat - 2025 4 Supreme 40 - 2025 4 Supreme 40, Shivprakash Meena Son of Shri Meetha Lal Meena vs State of Rajasthan - Rajasthan.
Application in Criminal Proceedings - Courts have quashed FIRs and proceedings when the allegations did not satisfy the criteria under Sections 196 and 197, or when the necessary sanction was not obtained. For instance, in one case, the court held that the FIR registered under Sections 196 and 197 was not sustainable as the facts did not attract these provisions, leading to quashing of the FIR Source: Imran Pratapgadhi VS State of Gujarat - 2025 4 Supreme 40 - 2025 4 Supreme 40.
Legal Interpretation and Judicial Approach - Courts emphasize that for offences under Sections 196 and 197, the core issue is whether the act was committed in official capacity and whether the prosecution was initiated without the requisite sanction. The courts scrutinize the allegations and evidence to determine if the ingredients of these sections are met before proceeding with criminal action Sources: Imran Pratapgadhi VS State of Gujarat - 2025 4 Supreme 40 - 2025 4 Supreme 40, Dilip Jha vs State Of Chhattisgarh - Chhattisgarh.
Main Points & Insights:
Analysis and Conclusion:The references collectively underscore that Sections 196 and 197 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita are procedural safeguards requiring prior sanction for prosecuting certain public officials. Courts have demonstrated a cautious approach, quashing FIRs and proceedings where these procedural requirements are not fulfilled or the allegations do not meet the necessary criteria. This ensures that criminal proceedings are initiated only when justified, respecting the legal protections afforded to public officials under these sections.
In the evolving landscape of India's criminal justice system, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, has replaced the Indian Penal Code (IPC), introducing updated provisions for modern challenges. Searches like 196 197 BNS explained are on the rise, especially amid high-profile FIRs for social media posts and political expressions. These sections target acts threatening India's sovereignty, unity, and integrity—serious offences often invoked in cybercrime and sedition-like cases. But what do they exactly cover? When do courts intervene?
This post breaks down Sections 196 and 197 of BNS, drawing from real FIRs, judicial rulings, and procedural safeguards. Note: This is general information for educational purposes only and not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for specific cases.
Sections 196 and 197 BNS address grave offences against the nation, focusing on actions that excite secession, rebellion, or separatist feelings. They expand on previous IPC provisions but adapt to digital-age threats like electronic communications.
These provisions are frequently paired with others like Section 152 (acts endangering sovereignty), 299 (murder), 352 (criminal force), and IT Act sections in FIRs. Wazahat Khan VS Union of India - 2025 Supreme(SC) 1003 - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1003Neha Singh Rathore @ Neha Kumari vs State of U.P. - 2025 Supreme(All) 3101 - 2025 0 Supreme(All) 3101
To invoke these sections, allegations must show intentional acts that directly threaten national integrity. Courts strictly interpret the essential ingredients.
These examples highlight use against expressions deemed subversive, but misuse leads to challenges.
Courts play a pivotal role, quashing FIRs if facts don't meet section ingredients or procedural lapses exist.
Judges scrutinize if the act links to prohibited conduct, protecting free speech while upholding security. Dilip Jha vs State Of Chhattisgarh - Chhattisgarh
Prosecuting BNS 196/197 offences isn't straightforward. Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) Sections 196 and 197 mandate prior sanction in sensitive cases, preventing frivolous suits.
For BNS 196/197, if accused is public servant and act tied to duties, sanction is typically needed. Courts dismiss without it. Ashok Kumar Verma VS State of M. P. - Madhya Pradesh (2017)Jai Prakash Singh VS State of Bihar - Patna (2012)
Main Points:- Prior sanction essential for state security offences (CrPC 196). Aveek Sarkar And Gullu Mirchandani VS State Of Jharkhand - Jharkhand (2006)- Applies broadly to officials (CrPC 197). Polavarapu Jagadiswararao VS Kondapaturi Venkateswarlu - Andhra Pradesh (1990)- Judicial relief if no reasonable link to duties. KARTAR SINGH VS H. P. STATE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION & POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD - Himachal Pradesh (2005)
Recent judgments show cautious approach:- Quashing FIR No. 197/2025 where counter-allegations lacked merit. Thommai Antony vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Inspector of Police, Arumuganeri Police Station, Thoothukudi District. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 55529 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 55529- Bail granted in Kandaghat PS case under BNS. Baby Rani @ Bebi Rani @ Baby Khan vs State of H.P. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 6008 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 6008
Courts balance security with rights, often quashing vague complaints. Sources: Imran Pratapgadhi VS State of Gujarat - 2025 4 Supreme 40Shivprakash Meena Son of Shri Meetha Lal Meena vs State of Rajasthan - Rajasthan
Sections 196 and 197 BNS safeguard national integrity against subversive acts, but their invocation demands precise allegations. Paired with CrPC sanctions, they ensure oversight. Understanding these is vital amid rising digital FIRs.
Key Takeaways:- Check Ingredients: FIRs quashed if no clear threat to sovereignty. Imran Pratapgadhi VS State of Gujarat - 2025 4 Supreme 40- Sanction Mandatory: For officials/state offences under CrPC 196/197. Polavarapu Jagadiswararao VS Kondapaturi Venkateswarlu - Andhra Pradesh (1990)Jai Prakash Singh VS State of Bihar - Patna (2012)- Seek Judicial Review: High success in quashing misuse.- Recommendations: Assess facts before filing; obtain sanction to avoid dismissal. Always verify with counsel.
References:Wazahat Khan VS Union of India - 2025 Supreme(SC) 1003 - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1003Neha Singh Rathore @ Neha Kumari vs State of U.P. - 2025 Supreme(All) 3101 - 2025 0 Supreme(All) 3101Thommai Antony vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Inspector of Police, Arumuganeri Police Station, Thoothukudi District. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 55529 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 55529RAHUL MOHAN vs THE STATE OF ASSAM - 2024 Supreme(Online)(GAU) 13524 - 2024 Supreme(Online)(GAU) 13524Ms. Farah Deeba vs The State of Maharashtra - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 5129 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 5129Imran Pratapgadhi VS State of Gujarat - 2025 4 Supreme 40Riyaz vs State of U.P. - 2025 Supreme(All) 2859 - 2025 0 Supreme(All) 2859Polavarapu Jagadiswararao VS Kondapaturi Venkateswarlu - Andhra Pradesh (1990)Jai Prakash Singh VS State of Bihar - Patna (2012)KARTAR SINGH VS H. P. STATE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION & POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD - Himachal Pradesh (2005)D. P. JOSHI VS STATE OF ORISSA - Orissa (1994)Aveek Sarkar And Gullu Mirchandani VS State Of Jharkhand - Jharkhand (2006)Jai Prakash Singh VS State of Bihar - Patna (2012)Karnati Bhaskar VS State Of A. P. - Andhra Pradesh (2000)Manoj Shrivastav VS Devdatt Tripathi - Madhya Pradesh (2000)
Stay informed on BNS changes—justice evolves.
#BNSExplained, #Section196197BNS, #IndianLaw
The petitioners, in these petitions, have sought relief of quashing the FIR No. 417 of 2025, registered at police station Kota, District Bilaspur for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 190, 196(1)(b), 197(1)(b), 197(1)(c), 299 and 302 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 4 of ... He would contend that the essential ingredients of Sections 190, 196(1)(b), #HL_STAR....
(iv) Haryana FIR: PS Cyber West, Gurugram; FIR No. 202 dated 02.06.2025 under section 152/ 192/ 196(1)(b)/ 197(1)(c)/ 197(1)(d)/ 299/ 352/ 353(2) of BNS and 67 of IT Act. ... / 299/ 352/ 352(1)(c) of the BNS. ... Ram Swabhiman Parishad u/s Section 196(1)(a), Section 299, Section 352, Section 353(1)(c) IPC r/w Sections 66A and 67 of the IT Act. (iii) Assam FIR – Panbazar Cyber PS Case No....
(1) (a), 197(1)(a), 299, 353(2), 353(3) of BNS and Section 66D of IT Act. ... As a result of aforesaid discussion, the FIR No. 339/2024, registered at Police Station Special Crime and Cyber Crime, Commissionerate, Jaipur, Deputy Commissioner of Police-Crime- Commissionerate, Jaipur for offences punishable u/S 196(1)(a), 197(1)(a), 299, 353(2), 353(3) of BNS and Section 66D of ... The criminal proceedings ....
Because no offence under Sections 196(1)(a), 196(1)(b), 197(1)(a), 197(1)(b), 197(1)(c), 197(1)(d), 353(1)(c), 353(2), 302, 152 of BNS , 2023 and 69a of the IT Act, 2008 has ever been committed by the petitioner herein." ... (1)(a), 196(1)(b), 197(1)(a), 197(1)(b), 197(1)(c), 197(1....
(b) and 115(2) of BNS , 2023 on the file of the first respondent. ... 3(5), 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 324(4), 305 and 351(2) of BNS , 2023 and that only to counter the said complaint, the instant FIR was lodged. ... ORDER The petitioners seek quashing of the FIR in Crime No.197 of 2025, which has been registered for the offences under Section 296 ... The grounds raised by the petitioners are that the defacto complainant's sons had committed ....
BNS with Police Station, Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P., on her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
Accordingly, the said FIR was lodged before the Panbazar Police Station, which was registered as Panbazar Police Station Case No.202/2024 registered under Sections 55/61(2)/147/ 148/149/152/196/197 of BNS, 2023, read with Sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908, read with Sections 10 ... /197 of BNS, 2023, read with Sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908, read with Sections 10/13 of t....
BNS 2023’). 2. Heard Mr. Sathe, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Smt. Deshmukh, learned APP for State.
Code of Criminal Procedure , the Petitioner is seeking quashing of First Information Report (FIR) No. 178 of 2025, dated 15th May 2025, registered with Kalepadal Police Station, Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 152 , 196, ... the Indian Army with respect to ‘Operation Sindoor’ and thereafter, she on her WhatsApp status, uploaded a video wherein the Prime Minister of India, has been shown as sitting on a rocket and the Indian National flag shown burning, attrac....
Section 196 of the BNS reads thus: "196. ... Therefore, Section 196 can have no application. 15. Section 197 reads thus: "197. ... The 2nd respondent is the first informant at whose instance a First Information Report (for short ‘FIR’) was registered with Jamnagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 196, 197(1), 302, 299, 57 and 3....
152. Act endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. - Whoever, purposely or knowingly, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or by electronic communication or by use of financial mean, or otherwise, excites or attempts to excite, secession or armed rebellion or subversive activities, or encourages feelings of separatist activities or endangers sovereignty or unity and integrity of India; or indulges in or commits any such act shall be punish....
However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment in Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, 2021 SCC ONLINE 913 held that DISCOMs would necessarily have to raise funds to clear their contractual obligations, while continuing to get supply of electricity from the generators. The following has been held in paragraphs 196 and 197 of the judgment. “196. There is no reason for this Court to reduce the contractual rate of interest and thereby alter or mod....
In his view, certain criminal conduct is so atrocious that the society's interest in deterrence and retribution wholly outweighs any consideration of reform or rehabilitation of the perpetrator and that, despite the inconclusive empirical evidence, only penalty of death will provide maximum deterrence. It was observed in paragraphs 196, 197 and 198 as under :- “196. We will first notice some of the aggravating circumstances which, in the absence of any mitigating circumstance....
However, he also extended his submissions to the evidence adduced by prosecution, investigation carried out and how the incompetence of defence lawyer affected the trial." "197. Amicus Curiae advocate P.B. Taori took the Court to the need of social cry and submitted that undisputedly the crime is heinous and needs to be dealt with sternly. In Paras 196, 197 and 198 of the Judgment, the findings are recorded as under : "196.
Amicus Curiae advocate P.B. Taori took the Court to the need of social cry and submitted that undisputedly the crime is heinous and needs to be dealt with sternly. In Paras 196, 197 and 198 of the Judgment, the findings are recorded as under : "196. However, he also extended his submissions to the evidence adduced by prosecution, investigation carried out and how the incompetence of defence lawyer affected the trial." "197.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
