False Charge of Offence with Intent to Injure under BNS: Section 248 with Ingredients and Landmark Cases

A man, motivated by enmity, files a false complaint accusing his neighbour of theft, knowing the neighbour is innocent. A woman, seeking to harass her estranged husband's family, falsely accuses them of a serious crime they did not commit. A business rival institutes false criminal proceedings to intimidate a competitor. A person, to settle a personal score, falsely implicates an enemy in a fabricated case. Each of these weaponises the criminal justice system itself - turning the machinery of prosecution into an instrument of harassment against innocent persons. The making of false charges is a serious offence against public justice, because it not only harms the innocent person falsely accused but also wastes the resources of the justice system and undermines its integrity. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, addresses this through Section 248 (giving false information with intent to cause a public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person), which criminalises the institution or causing of false criminal proceedings, and the giving of false information, with intent to injure. This module walks through Section 248, its ingredients, the crucial requirement of falsity and intent to injure, the graduated punishment, the distinction from related offences like malicious prosecution and defamation, and the leading cases.

1. Introduction

Weaponising the justice system

The criminal justice system exists to bring the guilty to justice and protect the innocent. But it can itself be weaponised - turned into an instrument of harassment against innocent persons through false charges:

• A false complaint sets the machinery of investigation and prosecution in motion against an innocent person.
• The innocent person suffers arrest, investigation, trial, stigma, and expense.
• The justice system's resources are wasted on a fabricated case.
• The integrity of the system is undermined.

The harm of false charges

The harm caused by false charges is multi-dimensional:

• Harm to the innocent person: arrest, detention, trial, reputational damage, financial cost, mental anguish.
• Harm to the justice system: wasted resources, diversion from genuine cases.
• Harm to public confidence: undermining trust in the fairness of the system.

Because of this multi-dimensional harm, the making of false charges is treated as a serious offence against public justice.

The statutory framework

The BNS addresses false charges through Section 248, which criminalises:

• Instituting or causing to be instituted false criminal proceedings.
• Falsely charging a person with an offence.
• Knowing there is no just or lawful ground.
• With intent to injure.

2. Section 248 BNS: The Statutory Provision

Text of Section 248

The scope of the offence

Section 248 covers two forms of conduct:

• Instituting or causing to be instituted a criminal proceeding against a person.
• Falsely charging a person with having committed an offence.

Both must be done knowing there is no just or lawful ground, and with intent to injure.

The graduated punishment

The punishment is graduated:

• Generally: up to five years, or fine, or both.
• If the false charge is of an offence punishable with death, life imprisonment, or ten years or more: up to ten years and fine.

3. The Ingredients of Section 248

All three must be established:

• The actus reus: instituting/causing criminal proceedings OR falsely charging with an offence.
• The knowledge element: knowing there is no just or lawful ground.
• The intent element: intent to cause injury to that person.

The combination of the false charge, the knowledge of its falsity, and the intent to injure constitutes the offence.

4. Instituting or Causing Criminal Proceedings

The first form of the actus reus is instituting or causing to be instituted a criminal proceeding:

• Instituting: directly initiating a criminal proceeding (filing a complaint, lodging an FIR).
• Causing to be instituted: indirectly bringing about the institution of a proceeding (e.g., getting another person to file a complaint).

Common examples:

• Filing a false FIR against an innocent person.
• Lodging a false complaint before a Magistrate.
• Getting a proceeding instituted through a third party.

The institution of the proceeding sets the machinery of the justice system in motion against the innocent person, which is the harm the provision targets.

5. Falsely Charging with an Offence

The second form of the actus reus is falsely charging a person with having committed an offence:

• Making a false accusation that a person committed an offence.
• Even without formally instituting a proceeding.

The distinction between the two forms:

• Instituting proceedings: setting the formal machinery in motion.
• Falsely charging: making the false accusation (which may or may not lead to a formal proceeding).

The 'falsely charging' limb is broader in one sense - it covers false accusations even where formal proceedings are not instituted. However, the false charge must be a formal or serious accusation, not merely a casual allegation (which might attract defamation instead).

6. The Requirement of No Just or Lawful Ground

A crucial ingredient is that the accused must know that there is no just or lawful ground for the proceeding or charge:

• The proceeding or charge must be baseless - without any just or lawful foundation.
• The accused must KNOW this - must know that there is no just or lawful ground.

This requirement:

• Distinguishes false charges from genuine but ultimately unsuccessful complaints.
• A person who genuinely believes an offence was committed, and files a complaint that later fails, is not liable under Section 248.
• Only where the person KNOWS there is no just or lawful ground (i.e., knows the charge is false) does Section 248 apply.

The 'no just or lawful ground' requirement, coupled with the knowledge element, ensures that Section 248 targets only deliberately false charges, not genuine complaints that happen to fail. This protects the right to make genuine complaints while criminalising the deliberate weaponisation of the justice system.

7. The Crucial Element: Intent to Injure

The crucial element of Section 248 is the intent to cause injury to the person:

• The false charge must be made WITH THE INTENT to cause injury to the person charged.
• This intent is the gravamen of the offence.

The meaning of 'injury':

• 'Injury' (Section 2(14) BNS) means any harm illegally caused to any person in body, mind, reputation, or property.
• The injury contemplated includes the harm of being subjected to a false criminal proceeding - the arrest, prosecution, stigma, and expense.

The intent to injure:

• Must be established by the prosecution.
• May be inferred from the circumstances (the falsity of the charge, the motive, the conduct).
• Distinguishes malicious false charges from genuine complaints.

8. The Graduated Punishment

The punishment is graduated according to the gravity of the offence falsely charged:

• A general false charge attracts up to five years, or fine, or both.
• A false charge of a SERIOUS offence (punishable with death, life imprisonment, or ten years or more) attracts up to ten years and fine.

The rationale:

• Falsely charging a person with a serious offence causes greater harm.
• The innocent person falsely charged with murder faces graver consequences than one falsely charged with a minor offence.
• The graduated punishment reflects the greater gravity of falsely charging serious offences.

This mirrors the graduated approach in Section 238 (screening) - the punishment is calibrated to the gravity of the offence involved, reflecting the principle that the seriousness of the wrong depends on the seriousness of the offence falsely charged.

9. Distinction from Malicious Prosecution

The distinction between the criminal offence of false charge and the civil wrong of malicious prosecution:

• Section 248 (false charge): a CRIMINAL offence, punishable with imprisonment or fine, prosecuted by the state.
• Malicious prosecution: a CIVIL wrong (tort), for which the victim may sue for damages.

The elements differ:

• Malicious prosecution requires: (i) prosecution by the defendant; (ii) termination in the plaintiff's favour; (iii) absence of reasonable and probable cause; (iv) malice; (v) damage.
• Section 248 requires: (i) instituting proceedings/false charge; (ii) knowledge of no just or lawful ground; (iii) intent to injure.

The two may arise from the same facts:

• A person who maliciously prosecutes another may face both criminal liability (Section 248) and civil liability (malicious prosecution).
• The criminal offence protects public justice; the civil wrong compensates the victim.

10. Distinction from Defamation and Related Offences

Distinctions:

• Section 248 (false charge) targets the false accusation of an offence, weaponising the criminal justice system with intent to injure.
• Section 356 (defamation) targets the publication of imputations harming reputation (a broader category, not limited to criminal charges).
• Section 238 (screening) targets giving false information to SCREEN an offender (protecting the guilty, opposite direction from false charge).
• Section 217 (false information) targets giving false information to a public servant to cause the public servant to act.

The distinction from defamation:

• A false charge (Section 248) is a formal accusation setting the criminal law in motion.
• Defamation (Section 356) is the publication of any imputation harming reputation.
• A false criminal accusation may be both a false charge (Section 248) and defamation (Section 356), but Section 248 specifically targets the weaponisation of the criminal process.

11. The Procedural Framework and Sanction

The prosecution of false charges is subject to a procedural framework:

• Where the false charge is made in relation to a court proceeding, the framework for offences against public justice applies (Section 379 BNSS, requiring a court complaint in certain cases).
• This ensures that prosecutions for false charges are subject to appropriate safeguards.

The procedural safeguards:

• Prevent the harassment of genuine complainants through counter-prosecutions for false charges.
• Ensure that Section 248 prosecutions are initiated only in appropriate cases.
• Balance the protection against false charges with the right to make genuine complaints.

The interaction with the right to complain:

• Section 248 must not be used to deter genuine complainants.
• The knowledge and intent requirements ensure that only deliberately false and malicious charges are prosecuted.
• A person who makes a genuine complaint that fails is protected.

12. Landmark Cases and Consolidated Judgments

Consolidated Landmark Judgments

• Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain, (1973) 2 SCC 406. Formal accusation required.
• Kamladevi Agarwal v. State of West Bengal, (2002) 1 SCC 555. Intent to injure essential.
• Kailash Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2011) SC. Distinguishing from failed complaints.
• Bhima Razu Prasad v. State, (2021) SC. Targeting deliberate abuse.
• Basir-ul-Huq v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1953 SC 293. False charge ingredients.
• Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1966 SC 97. Falsity and intent.
• M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh, (2001) 8 SCC 645. Procedural framework.
• Chandrapal Singh v. Maharaj Singh, (1982) 1 SCC 466. Protection of genuine complainants.
• State of Uttar Pradesh v. R.K. Srivastava, (1989) 4 SCC 59. Knowledge of no lawful ground.
• Perumal v. Janaki, (2014) 5 SCC 377. Complaint framework for false charges.
• Daroga Singh v. B.K. Pandey, (2004) SC. Framework for abuse of process.
• Kishun Singh v. State of Bihar, (1993) 2 SCC 16. Framework for institution of proceedings.
• Mahila Vinod Kumari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 8 SCC 34. False complaint framework.
• Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 281. False matrimonial charges context.
• Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667. False implication of relatives.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Section 248 BNS?

Section 248 BNS (corresponding to Section 211 IPC) criminalises the making of false charges of offence with intent to injure. It provides: whoever, with intent to cause injury to any person, institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against that person, or falsely charges any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge, shall be punished. The punishment is graduated: generally up to five years, or fine, or both; and if the false charge is of an offence punishable with death, life imprisonment, or ten years or more, up to ten years and fine. The offence protects innocent persons from being falsely implicated and protects the justice system from being weaponised. Three key ingredients: (i) instituting proceedings or falsely charging; (ii) knowledge of no just or lawful ground; (iii) intent to cause injury.

What are the ingredients of the offence of false charge?

Section 248 has three ingredients: (i) INSTITUTING OR CAUSING criminal proceedings against a person, OR falsely charging a person with having committed an offence; (ii) KNOWING that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge; (iii) with INTENT to cause injury to that person. All three must be established. The actus reus is either instituting/causing criminal proceedings (setting the formal machinery in motion) or falsely charging with an offence (making the false accusation). The knowledge element requires that the accused knew there was no just or lawful ground - the charge was baseless and the accused knew it. The intent element requires that the false charge was made with intent to cause injury (harm to body, mind, reputation, or property, including the harm of being subjected to a false proceeding). The combination of falsity, knowledge, and intent to injure constitutes the offence.

What does 'falsely charges' mean under Section 248?

In Santokh Singh v Izhar Hussain, (1973) 2 SCC 406, the Supreme Court held that 'falsely charges' means a FORMAL ACCUSATION before a public authority competent to take action, NOT merely a loose or casual allegation. The false charge must be one that could set the criminal law in motion. This is significant: a casual or loose allegation of wrongdoing (which might attract defamation) is not a 'false charge' under Section 248. The provision targets formal accusations that engage the criminal justice machinery. The 'falsely charging' limb covers false accusations even where formal proceedings are not instituted, but the accusation must be a formal or serious one made to a competent authority, capable of setting the criminal law in motion. This distinguishes Section 248 (false criminal charge) from defamation (Section 356), which covers the publication of any imputation harming reputation, whether or not it engages the criminal process.

What is the intent to injure requirement?

The crucial element of Section 248 is the INTENT TO CAUSE INJURY to the person charged. The false charge must be made WITH THE INTENT to cause injury - this intent is the gravamen of the offence. 'Injury' (Section 2(14) BNS) means any harm illegally caused to any person in body, mind, reputation, or property. The injury contemplated includes the harm of being subjected to a false criminal proceeding - the arrest, prosecution, stigma, and expense. The intent to injure must be established by the prosecution, though it may be inferred from the circumstances (the falsity of the charge, the motive, the conduct). In Kamladevi Agarwal v State of West Bengal, (2002) 1 SCC 555, the Supreme Court held that the false charge must be made with the intent to cause injury, which may be inferred from the circumstances, and emphasised that the provision targets deliberately false and malicious charges. The intent to injure distinguishes malicious false charges from genuine complaints that happen to fail.

How is Section 248 different from malicious prosecution?

Section 248 (false charge) is a CRIMINAL OFFENCE, while malicious prosecution is a CIVIL WRONG (tort). Section 248: punishable with imprisonment or fine, prosecuted by the state, protecting public justice. Malicious prosecution: the victim may sue for damages, a civil remedy compensating the victim. The elements also differ. Malicious prosecution requires: (i) prosecution by the defendant; (ii) termination in the plaintiff's favour; (iii) absence of reasonable and probable cause; (iv) malice; (v) damage. Section 248 requires: (i) instituting proceedings/false charge; (ii) knowledge of no just or lawful ground; (iii) intent to injure. The two may arise from the same facts - a person who maliciously prosecutes another may face both criminal liability (Section 248) and civil liability (malicious prosecution). The criminal offence protects public justice and punishes the wrongdoer; the civil wrong compensates the victim for the damage suffered. They are complementary rather than mutually exclusive.

Does Section 248 deter genuine complainants?

No, and it is designed not to. Section 248 targets only DELIBERATELY FALSE and MALICIOUS charges, not genuine complaints that happen to fail. The safeguards: (i) the KNOWLEDGE requirement - the accused must have known there was no just or lawful ground (i.e., known the charge was false); (ii) the INTENT requirement - the false charge must have been made with intent to injure. A person who genuinely believes an offence was committed and files a complaint that later fails is NOT liable under Section 248, because they did not know the charge was false and did not act with intent to injure. In Chandrapal Singh v Maharaj Singh (1982), the Supreme Court held that the provision should not be used to harass persons who make genuine complaints, and that the falsity and malicious intent must be clearly established. In Kailash Singh v State of Rajasthan (2011), the Court reiterated that the provision should be applied only where the charge is deliberately false and malicious, not where a genuine complaint fails. These safeguards protect the right to make genuine complaints while criminalising the deliberate weaponisation of the justice system.

Related Topics on The Legal Bridge

For a fuller picture, read these companion notes on adjacent doctrines and provisions:

• Causing Disappearance of Evidence under BNS: Section 238 that addresses screening offenders, the opposite of false charges.
• Defamation under BNS: Section 356 that addresses harm to reputation, distinct from false criminal charges.
• False Information to Public Servant under BNS: the related provisions on giving false information to cause action.
• Offences Against Public Justice under BNS: Chapter XIV of which Section 248 is part.