Section 199 punishes a public servant who knowingly disobeys a legal direction prohibiting them from requiring a person's attendance for investigation purposes; who knowingly disobeys, to a person's prejudice, any other direction of law regulating how an investigation must be conducted; or who fails to record certain information relating to specified serious cognizable offences as required under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with rigorous imprisonment of not less than six months and up to two years, and fine.
Verified against the National Crime Records Bureau's official BNS–IPC concordance (Sankalan Portal), which maps Section 199 to old IPC Section 166A. On attempting to cross-check this against the bare text of the old law, the edition of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 consulted for this book was found to contain no text at all for Section 166A — the text of the edition jumps directly from Section 166 to Section 167, even though the same edition does include other, comparably later-inserted provisions elsewhere in the Act (for example, Sections 376A–376D). This is therefore flagged as a sourcing gap rather than assigned a comparison category.
| BNS section | IPC, 1860 equivalent | Category |
|---|---|---|
| 199 | 166A | Sourcing gap — see below |
Sourcing gap: No comparison to the old law's text can be drawn for this section until the actual text of old IPC Section 166A is supplied and verified. This does not affect the accuracy of the Statutory Text (Verbatim) block below, which is drawn directly and independently from the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 itself.
Whoever, being a public servant,—
(a) knowingly disobeys any direction of the law which prohibits him from requiring the attendance at any place of any person for the purpose of investigation into an offence or any other matter; or
(b) knowingly disobeys, to the prejudice of any person, any other direction of the law regulating the manner in which he shall conduct such investigation; or
(c) fails to record any information given to him under sub-section (1) of section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in relation to cognizable offence punishable under section 64, section 65, section 66, section 67, section 68, section 70, section 71, section 74, section 76, section 77, section 79, section 124, section 143 or section 144,
shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Source: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023), as published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary.
A public servant who knowingly disobeys a legal direction barring them from requiring a person's attendance at any place for the purposes of investigating an offence or other matter falls within this clause.
Beyond the specific attendance-related direction in clause (a), this clause covers knowingly disobeying any other legal direction regulating how an investigation must be conducted, but only where that disobedience prejudices a person.
This clause specifically targets a public servant's failure to record information given to them under Section 173(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, where that information relates to a cognizable offence punishable under one of the specifically listed BNS sections (64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 74, 76, 77, 79, 124, 143, or 144).
These judgment(s) relate to Section 199 as a whole rather than to one specific sub-section, and so are presented together here rather than alongside a particular clause above.
Lalita Kumari, a minor, through her father, went to the Supreme Court after the police station did not act on a written report that she had been kidnapped; an FIR was registered only after the Superintendent of Police was approached. The case raised the larger question whether the police must register an FIR whenever information discloses a cognizable offence, or may first hold a preliminary inquiry, and it was referred to a Constitution Bench because earlier decisions conflicted.
One argument before the Bench was that the old law’s Section 166A, which punishes a police officer for failing to record information about certain listed offences, implies that officers have discretion in all other cases. The Court rejected that reading. It said the provision was inserted to tighten existing safeguards for women, and that its only meaning is that police officers are expressly punished for failing to register FIRs in those cases. It does not imply discretion in other cognizable offences. Section 199 of the Sanhita is the successor of that old provision.
Clauses (a) and (b) apply generally to investigation conduct. Clause (c), on failing to record information, is specifically tied to cognizable offences punishable under the particular BNS sections it lists.
Rigorous imprisonment for not less than six months, which may extend to two years, and fine.
The edition of the old Indian Penal Code, 1860 consulted for this book does not contain any text for Section 166A, the provision the official concordance maps this section to. This has been flagged as a sourcing gap pending the actual text of that provision.