Section 246 punishes a person who makes in a Court a claim that he knows to be false, doing so fraudulently or dishonestly, or with intent to injure or annoy any person. The punishment is imprisonment of either description for up to two years, and the offender is also liable to fine. It corresponds to IPC Section 209; the one wording difference is that the BNS says “a Court” where the IPC said “a Court of Justice”.
Verified against the National Crime Records Bureau’s official BNS–IPC concordance (Sankalan Portal) and cross-checked directly against the bare text of both Acts. Section 246 is marked Exact — it descends from one section of the old Indian Penal Code, 1860, with no change in the act, the mental states or the punishment; the one drafting-level difference found is explained below the table:
| BNS 246 | Covers | IPC, 1860 equivalent | Category |
|---|---|---|---|
| 246 | Dishonestly making false claim in Court | S.209 “Dishonesty making false claim in Court” (as printed in the concordance) | Exact |
A systematic word-by-word comparison of the two texts, followed by a look at the printed pages of both Acts, shows that BNS Section 246 matches IPC Section 209 in the act (making in a Court any claim which the person knows to be false), in the three alternative mental states (fraudulently or dishonestly, or with intent to injure or annoy any person) and in the punishment (imprisonment of either description for up to two years, and liability to fine). Apart from the section number, the position in which each Act prints the heading, and page furniture, the one difference found is that where the IPC says “makes in a Court of Justice any claim” the BNS says “makes in a Court any claim”. Section 2(5) of the Sanhita defines “Court” as a Judge who is empowered by law to act judicially alone, or a body of Judges which is empowered by law to act judicially as a body, when such Judge or body of Judges is acting judicially, and IPC Section 20 defined “Court of Justice” in the same words (the two definitions were compared word by word; IPC Section 20 also carried an illustration, which Section 2(5) does not). The change of term is therefore treated as a drafting-level difference that alters no ingredient, obligation or punishment, which is why the row is classed as Exact. A note on the IPC heading: in the IPC text consulted, the heading at the top of the page reads “Dishonestly making false claim in Court”, while the run-in heading of the section itself, and the concordance, read “Dishonesty making false claim in Court”; the BNS heading reads “Dishonestly making false claim in Court”.
Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly, or with intent to injure or annoy any person, makes in a Court any claim which he knows to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term 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.
Section 246 punishes the making of a false claim in a Court. The offence has three parts: an act (making a claim in a Court), a state of knowledge (the person knows the claim to be false) and a state of mind (one of three alternatives). All three must be present. The section does not say that the claim must succeed, or that any decree or order must follow; its words are about making the claim.
The act — “makes in a Court any claim”. “Court” is defined in Section 2(5) as a Judge who is empowered by law to act judicially alone, or a body of Judges which is empowered by law to act judicially as a body, when such Judge or body of Judges is acting judicially. The section says “in a Court” and “any claim”; it does not say what kind of proceeding the claim is made in. The Sanhita does not define “claim”, and this page uses it in its ordinary sense of a demand made as of right.
The knowledge — “which he knows to be false”. The section uses the word “knows”. It does not use the words “has reason to believe”, which Section 2(29) defines as having sufficient cause to believe a thing but not otherwise. On the words of the section, a claim that the person believes to be true does not fit “which he knows to be false”. The Sanhita does not define “false”.
The state of mind — three alternatives. The claim must be made “fraudulently or dishonestly, or with intent to injure or annoy any person”. Each of these can be taken separately. “Fraudulently” is defined in Section 2(9) as doing anything with the intention to defraud but not otherwise. “Dishonestly” is defined in Section 2(7) as doing anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person; “wrongful gain” and “wrongful loss” are defined in Section 2(36) and 2(37). The third alternative, intent to injure or annoy any person, is not framed in terms of gain or loss: Section 2(14) defines “injury” as any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property, but the section uses the verb “injure” and the word “annoy”, and the Sanhita does not separately define either. A claim made only to harass another person, with no hope of gain, is therefore not outside the section’s words if the intent to injure or annoy is present.
Neighbouring sections. Section 247 (Fraudulently obtaining decree for sum not due) requires that a decree or order actually be obtained, or caused to be executed, whereas Section 246 does not mention any decree. Section 245 (Fraudulently suffering decree for sum not due) concerns the person against whom a decree operates. Section 248 (False charge of offence made with intent to injure) concerns criminal proceedings and false charges of offences, whereas Section 246 speaks of a claim in a Court. Section 227 (Giving false evidence) is framed differently: it concerns a person who is legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, and makes a statement which is false; Section 246 does not mention an oath.
Punishment and classification. The punishment is imprisonment of either description for up to two years, and the offender “shall also be liable to fine”. Under Section 4(c) imprisonment is of two descriptions, rigorous (with hard labour) and simple. The section does not offer fine alone as an alternative, as Sections 244, 245 and 247 do (“or with fine, or with both”), and it states no sum to which the fine may extend; Section 8(1) provides that where no sum is expressed the amount of fine is unlimited, but shall not be excessive. The BNSS First Schedule lists the offence as non-cognizable, bailable and triable by a Magistrate of the first class. Under BNSS Section 2(1)(o) a police officer has no authority to arrest without warrant in a non-cognizable case, and under BNSS Section 174(2) no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. Because the offence is bailable, BNSS Section 478(1) applies: a person accused of a bailable offence who is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station, or who appears or is brought before a Court, and is prepared to give bail, “shall be released on bail” (subject to the rest of that section). The offence appears in neither table of BNSS Section 359, and Section 359(9) provides that no offence shall be compounded except as provided by that section, so it is not compoundable. Section 246 is also one of the sections named in BNSS Section 215(1)(b)(i): when such an offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, no Court shall take cognizance of it except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of an officer of that Court authorised in writing, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. For that purpose BNSS Section 215(3) says the term “Court” means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central or State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of that section.
The section does not make success an ingredient. Its words are that the person “makes in a Court any claim which he knows to be false”, with one of the three states of mind it lists. It does not mention a decree or order; Section 247 is the section that speaks of obtaining a decree.
The section requires that the person knows the claim to be false. A claim that the person believes to be true does not fit those words. The section does not use the phrase “has reason to believe”, which Section 2(29) defines separately.
The section says the offender “shall also be liable to fine” in addition to imprisonment of either description for up to two years. It makes the offender liable to fine; it does not state a minimum or a maximum sum, and Section 8(1) provides that where no sum is expressed the amount of fine is unlimited, but shall not be excessive. The First Schedule records the punishment as “Imprisonment for 2 years and fine”.
The BNSS First Schedule lists it as non-cognizable and bailable, triable by a Magistrate of the first class. For a bailable offence, BNSS Section 478(1) provides that the accused person who is prepared to give bail “shall be released on bail”, subject to the rest of that section. It is not in either compounding table of BNSS Section 359, so it is not compoundable.
Section 227 is about a person who is legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, and who makes a false statement which he knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true. Section 246 is about making a claim in a Court which the person knows to be false, with fraudulent or dishonest intent or with intent to injure or annoy any person, and it does not mention an oath or a legal duty to state the truth.