Difference between IPC Section 211 and 182


Difference between IPC  Section  211 and  182


Section 211 in The Indian Penal Code


False charge of offence made with intent to injure:


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 against that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either des c r i p tion for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; and if such criminal proceeding be instituted on a false charge of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for seven years or upwards, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either des c r i p tion for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.


This section of the Code Institute fake or false criminal proceedings against any person or falsely charges anyone of a crime. When someone is accused having committed offence under this section it has to be recognized that the person who brought the unproven false charges should aware of the fact that the said charges were false.


The punishment for committing an offence under this section is generally imprisonment up to a period of two years and/or fine.  If the said false charge is regarding an offence punishable by death, life imprisonment, or a maximum period of imprisonment of seven years or more, then the punishment gets increased to imprisonment up to a period of 7 years, also a fine if the court considers it so.



Section 182 in The Indian Penal Code


 False information, with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person :


Whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant—


(a) to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, or


(b) to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person shall be punished with imprisonment of either des c r i p tion for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.



 Illustrations


(a) A informs a Magistrate that Z, a police-officer, subordinate to such Magistrate, has been guilty of neglect of duty or miscon­duct, knowing such information to be false, and knowing it to be likely that the information will cause the Magistrate to dismiss Z. A has committed the offence defined in this section.


(b) A falsely informs a public servant that Z has contraband salt in a secret place knowing such information to be false and knowing that it is likely that the consequence of the information will be a search of Z’s premises, attended with annoyance to Z. A has committed the offence defined in this section.


(c) A falsely informs a policeman that he has been assaulted and robbed in the neighbourhood of a particular village. He does not mention the name of any person as one of his assistants but knows it to be likely that in consequence of this information the police will make enquiries and institute searches in the village to the annoyance of the villages or some of them. A has committed an offence under this section.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Family - injunction

✔Whether Wife can seek injunction to restrain husband from performing second marriage? Family - injunction - Section 24of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - appeal by wife against decree of divorce - appellant wife prayed for restraining respondent husband from marrying during pendency of present appeal - respondent husband contended that if appellant wife succeed in present appeal then second marriage by him would be void and it would not have any effect on status of appellant and injunction in favour of appellant should not be granted - Court observed that if wife does not succeed in present appeal then status of second marriage by respondent husband would go unhindered but if she succeed then she is bound to face mental agony and status of second wife would also be in controversy - therefore balance of convenience in favour of injunction and thus injunction against husband granted. 🙏🙏Family - injunction  Section 24of Hindu M
Read more

Juvenile Justice

“Juvenile crime is not naturally born in the boy, but is largely due either to the spirit of adventure that is in him, to his own stupidity, or to his lack of discipline, according to the nature of the individual.” This quotation by “Robert Baden – Powell” distinctly relates the condition of juvenile justice system in contemporary India. Whether the present day legislation in India on juveniles are for its reformation or to give punishment. Section 2(k) of the juvenile justice act, 2000 defines “juvenile” as a person who has not completed the age of 18 years. The trial procedure was different for them as they were considered as one of the vulnerable class of our society but the drastic change came in this with the coming of juvenile justice (care and protection of children) Act, 2015, if a juvenile within the age group 16-18 years is in the conflict with law and engaged in any of the heinous crime can be tried as adults. The engagement of juvenile in heinous crimes and increasing
Read more