IPC 504 in the new BNS 2023

If you have been named in an FIR or notice under this section, the section number alone does not decide the outcome — the facts, the evidence and the procedure do. Many cases turn on procedural lapses, bail strategy and the exact ingredients of the offence.

Intentional insult is the section that turns abuse into a criminal offence, and it is one of the most frequently added charges in Indian FIRs. Under the BNS it sits at Section 352, and the ingredient people most often overlook is the last one: the insult must have been intended or known to be likely to provoke a breach of the peace. Abuse alone, however offensive, does not complete the offence.

What the section requires

For the offence to be made out, these ingredients have to be established:

• the accused intentionally insulted another person
• the insult was such as to give provocation to that person
• the accused intended or knew it to be likely that the provocation would cause the person to break the public peace or to commit some other offence

What changed from the IPC

The provision is carried over without substantive change. The offence and its punishment — up to two years, or a fine, or both — are the same as under IPC 504; only the numbering changed. The renumbering does create a citation trap worth knowing about: IPC 352 was assault or criminal force without grave provocation, so an old reference to 'Section 352' means something quite different from a BNS reference to the same number.

How this section is distinguished from related offences

The neighbouring provisions are commonly charged together and are frequently confused. Criminal intimidation under BNS 351 requires a threat of injury made to cause alarm or to compel an act, whereas Section 352 requires only an insult that provokes. Where the insult is directed at a woman and is intended to insult her modesty, the applicable provision is BNS 79, which carries up to three years. Where the words promote enmity between groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, language or caste, the offence is BNS 196, which is considerably more serious. Where the insult is published rather than spoken to the person, defamation under BNS 356 may apply instead.

How the case proceeds

The offence is triable by a magistrate and, with a two-year maximum, it sits at the lower end of the scale. In practice it is almost never prosecuted alone; it appears as one section among several arising from a confrontation. It is non-cognizable in the ordinary course, which means a complaint to the magistrate rather than a direct police FIR is the usual route where it stands by itself, though it is commonly registered along with cognizable offences arising from the same incident.

Evidence that usually decides these cases

Since the offence consists of spoken words, the case rests on how reliably those words were captured and on the circumstances in which they were used. Recordings and messages are the strongest material because they fix both content and context, and context matters here more than in most offences, because the same words can satisfy or fail the third ingredient depending on where and in front of whom they were said. Independent witnesses are important, particularly on whether the exchange was public and whether it was escalating toward violence. The promptness of the complaint is examined, since an allegation of abuse first made weeks later, after a dispute has hardened, is treated with caution.

How courts approach sentencing

Imprisonment of up to two years, or a fine, or both. Where this section stands alone, the outcome is rarely more than a fine, and matters of this kind are frequently compounded or resolved between the parties. Its practical significance usually lies in the more serious charges it accompanies rather than in its own punishment.

Defences that commonly apply

The most effective answer is that the words, taken in the context in which they were spoken, were not intended and were not known to be likely to provoke a breach of the peace. Establishing that the exchange was private, that no third party was present, or that it occurred in circumstances where violence was not a realistic consequence goes directly to that ingredient. Denying the words were used at all is the other route, and it turns on the reliability of the complainant's account and on any recording. Where the complaint follows a pre-existing dispute and was made only after that dispute turned against the complainant, the sequence is routinely relied on.

How a case under this section typically progresses

As a magistrate's case this is a short process, but its timeline in practice follows the more serious charges it accompanies. Where the section stands alone, the matter usually proceeds on a complaint to the magistrate rather than through a police investigation. Because such disputes are commonly personal, compounding and settlement dispose of a large proportion of them before trial.

Documents worth gathering early

Preserve any recording, message or voice note of the exchange in its original form on the original device, together with anything showing the context in which it occurred. Note the names and contact details of anyone present who is unconnected to either party, since whether the exchange was public is directly relevant. Where a prior dispute exists — a property matter, a workplace grievance, a neighbour disagreement — keep those papers, because the sequence of events is usually the central question. Request CCTV in writing immediately if the incident occurred in a place likely to be covered.

Note on bail and cognizability. Whether an offence is cognizable, and whether it is bailable, is set by the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, not by the BNS section itself. Because that classification decides whether police can arrest without a warrant and how bail is approached, check it for your specific section with an advocate rather than relying on a general summary.

If you have been named under this section

Because the section is nearly always accompanied by other charges, the correct approach is to look at the FIR as a whole rather than at this provision in isolation. On this section specifically, the defence is usually that the third ingredient is missing: the prosecution must establish not merely that offensive words were used but that they were intended or known to be likely to provoke a breach of the peace. Words exchanged in a private argument, without anything to suggest that consequence was intended, frequently fail that test.

Common misunderstandings

"Any abuse is an offence under this section."
It is not. The insult must be such as to give provocation, and the accused must have intended or known it likely that the provocation would cause a breach of the peace or another offence. Offensive words alone do not complete the offence.

"BNS 352 is the same as IPC 352."
It is not. IPC 352 dealt with assault or criminal force without grave provocation. BNS 352 is intentional insult, replacing IPC 504.

"The punishment increased under the BNS."
It did not. The maximum remains two years, or a fine, or both, exactly as under IPC 504.

"Insulting a woman falls under this section."
Where the words or gestures are intended to insult a woman's modesty, the applicable provision is BNS 79, which carries up to three years, not BNS 352.

Related BNS sections

• BNS 352 — Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace
• BNS 351 — Criminal intimidation (IPC 506)
• BNS 79 — Word or gesture intended to insult the modesty of a woman (IPC 509)
• BNS 196 — Promoting enmity between groups (IPC 153A)

Which code applies to your case

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 replaced the Indian Penal Code 1860 with effect from 1 July 2024, and the change is not retrospective. The date the offence is alleged to have been committed decides which code governs it. An offence alleged to have occurred on or after 1 July 2024 proceeds under the BNS. An offence alleged to have occurred before that date continues to be investigated, tried, appealed and punished under the IPC, even where the FIR was registered later. Cases from the transition period frequently cite both numbering systems, which is why the old section number remains worth knowing.

Named under this section? Ask the free AI Advocate →

General information for understanding the IPC→BNS change, not legal advice. The BNS restructured many offences — confirm the exact section, sub-section and punishment with a licensed advocate.