BNSS Section 202: New Jurisdictional Rules for Cyber-Cheating and Bigamy

 


An analysis of how the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, determines the ‘place of trial’ for offences committed via electronic communication and in cases of bigamy.

Introduction: The “Where” of Digital Crime

Picture this scenario: you live in Delhi, a scammer based in Kolkata sends you a fraudulent message, and your money lands in a Mumbai bank account. Where should you go to file a case? This question captures one of the most common challenges in modern law enforcement—the problem of jurisdiction in the digital age.

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), brings renewed clarity to this question through BNSS Section 202. Though it does not define a new crime, it plays a critical procedural role by answering “where” a criminal case can be filed, investigated, and tried.

In essence, Section 202 BNSS deals with territorial jurisdiction—the geographical limits within which a criminal court can exercise its authority. It adapts this concept to suit 21st-century realities such as cybercrime, online fraud, and cross-jurisdictional offences, while also addressing sensitive personal offences like bigamy in a victim-friendly manner.

This article examines how Section 202 redefines jurisdiction in two areas:

  1. Cheating and digital fraud committed through electronic communication; and

  2. Bigamy, where an aggrieved spouse seeks justice after the offender marries again during the first marriage.

1. Section 202(1): Tackling Jurisdiction in Cheating and Digital Fraud

The Long Arm of the Law in Cheating Cases

Section 202(1) of the BNSS lays down clear jurisdictional rules for offences involving cheating or fraud. It states that if the deception is carried out by means of letters, electronic communication, or similar modes, the trial can be conducted in any of the following places:

  • The place where the communication was sent; or

  • The place where the communication was received; or

  • The place where the property was delivered by the victim; or

  • The place where the property was received by the accused.

This flexible rule ensures that the victim of a cheating offence has multiple options to initiate legal action, depending on where the elements of the offence took place.

Electronic Communication: A Broad Interpretation

In the digital era, “electronic communication” encompasses far more than emails. It includes SMS, WhatsApp messages, social media DMs, fraudulent websites, and even fake online forms. Essentially, any electronic medium used to deceive or induce a person into parting with property or money comes within this definition.

The Problem It Solves

Earlier, under the CrPC, jurisdictional ambiguity often delayed cybercrime cases. Offenders could argue that because they operated from a different state, local police lacked authority to investigate. BNSS Section 202(1) closes this loophole by providing multiple valid venues for filing a case.

Illustrative Example

Consider the following scenario:

  • The accused, located in Jaipur, sends a phishing email.

  • The victim, based in Pune, opens the email and is deceived.

  • The victim transfers money from their Pune bank account.

  • The accused receives the money in their Kolkata bank account.

Under BNSS Section 202(1), the case can be filed in:

  • Jaipur (where the message was sent),

  • Pune (where it was received and property delivered), or

  • Kolkata (where the property was received by the accused).

This empowers the victim and police to take action from multiple points of jurisdiction.

Practical Impact

By offering multiple jurisdictional options, Section 202(1) significantly improves the enforcement of cybercrime laws. Victims no longer have to travel across states to file cases, and law enforcement agencies can proceed efficiently without procedural disputes.

In short, this subsection ensures that digital distance cannot shield the digital offender.

2. Section 202(2): Victim-Centric Jurisdiction in Bigamy Cases

Protecting the Aggrieved Spouse

Section 202(2) deals with jurisdiction in cases of bigamy, as defined under Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023—knowingly marrying again during the lifetime of one’s lawful spouse.

The subsection provides that such an offence may be tried in any of the following places:

  1. The place where the second marriage (the offence) occurred;

  2. The place where the offender last resided with the first spouse; or

  3. The place where the first wife has taken up permanent residence after the offence.

Why This Provision Matters

This clause marks a significant step toward a victim-centric approach in procedural law. Bigamy cases often involve emotional trauma, abandonment, and financial hardship. Frequently, the first wife is left to fend for herself in a different city.

Under previous legal frameworks, she would often have to travel to the place where her husband contracted the second marriage—an added layer of hardship. BNSS Section 202(2) changes that by allowing her to initiate proceedings from her own place of permanent residence.

Illustrative Example

Imagine a couple last lived together in Mumbai. The husband later goes to Delhi and enters into a second marriage. Upon discovering this, the wife relocates to Chennai to live with her parents.

Under Section 202(2), the wife can file a complaint in:

  • Delhi (where the second marriage took place),

  • Mumbai (where they last lived together), or

  • Chennai (where she now resides permanently).

This provision thus prioritizes convenience and accessibility for the aggrieved spouse.

Social Significance

This jurisdictional flexibility upholds the dignity of the victim by ensuring that justice remains accessible without physical or financial barriers. It also reflects a larger legislative intent—to make legal procedures more empathetic and responsive to social realities, particularly for women affected by marital offences.

By incorporating this clause, the BNSS recognizes that justice delayed by geography is justice denied.

3. Comparative Analysis: BNSS Section 202 vs. CrPC Section 182

Continuity and Change: From CrPC to BNSS

Section 202 of the BNSS is the modern successor to Section 182 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). While their essence remains similar, BNSS Section 202 introduces crucial updates to suit the digital era.

Key Similarities

Both provisions address the same central issue—territorial jurisdiction in cases of cheating and bigamy. Under both, the law allows for more than one location to be valid for filing and trial, depending on where the elements of the offence occurred.

Key Modernization

The most significant change is the explicit mention of “electronic communication” in BNSS Section 202(1). In contrast, the CrPC used the term “letters,” which courts had to interpret broadly to include emails and online messages.

By expressly incorporating digital means, the BNSS formally extends jurisdiction to cyber-crimes, online scams, and electronic fraud, ensuring that legal interpretation keeps pace with technology.

Continuity in Bigamy Provisions

The jurisdictional rule for bigamy in BNSS Section 202(2) continues the pro-victim legacy of Section 182(2) CrPC. However, the new law reiterates the victim’s autonomy more clearly, aligning procedural law with modern notions of equality and access to justice.

The Bigger Picture

The BNSS thus represents both continuity and evolution—retaining the justice-oriented intent of the old law while modernizing it to meet the demands of the digital and social realities of 2025.

4. Conclusion: Making Justice More Accessible

BNSS Section 202 is a pivotal procedural reform in India’s criminal justice framework. It determines where a case can be tried—a question that directly affects the speed, convenience, and fairness of justice.

For offences like cheating through electronic means, it ensures that the law’s reach extends across state borders, empowering victims to act without procedural delays. For offences like bigamy, it humanizes legal procedure by placing the victim’s convenience and dignity at the center.

In both contexts, the goal is clear: to make justice accessible, efficient, and victim-oriented.

The evolution from CrPC Section 182 to BNSS Section 202 demonstrates the legislature’s intent to harmonize traditional legal principles with modern challenges—cybercrime, electronic evidence, and gender justice.

Ultimately, Section 202 embodies a progressive approach: that justice in India must not be constrained by geography, technology, or social circumstance. It ensures that every victim—whether of digital deception or marital betrayal—has the right to seek redress where it is most practical and fair.

Also read: BNSS Section 199

Final Thought:
In a world where technology erases physical boundaries, BNSS Section 202 ensures that the law keeps pace. By redefining the place of trial, it strengthens the very foundation of justice—ensuring that no offender can hide behind distance, and no victim is left behind because of it.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What Are the Key Highlights of the Online Moot Court Competition 2024?

Image
An Online Moot Court Competition is a virtual version of the traditional moot court competition. In a moot court, participants simulate real court proceedings by arguing legal issues before a panel of judges. These competitions are designed to develop skills in legal research, writing, and oral advocacy. The online format of moot court competitions, especially in 2024, integrates digital tools to conduct these simulations remotely. Significance of Online Moot Court Competition 2024 Accessibility and Inclusivity : Global Participation : One of the major advantages of online moot court competitions is the ability to include participants from around the world. Law students and professionals who may not have the means to travel can now take part in high-profile competitions without geographical constraints. Equal Opportunity : Online platforms level the playing field, providing equal opportunities for participants regardless of their location or institutional affiliation. Convenience and ...
Read more

BNSS Chapter 7 – Processes to Compel the Production of Things

Image
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), represents a substantial reform in India's criminal procedure regulation. Among its many chapters, Chapter 7, titled " Processes to Compel the Production of Things ," plays a crucial role in making sure justice via facilitating the lawful collection of evidence. In any crook research or trial, getting the right of entry to documents, articles, letters, and different physical evidence can considerably affect the route of justice. Chapter 7 establishes the technique via which courts and government can achieve such evidence lawfully. This bankruptcy encompasses multiple sections, but this text makes a speciality of Sections ninety four to 97, which shape the backbone of the prison process for summoning or trying to find essential objects. Section 94 – Summons to Produce Document or Other Thing Section 94 empowers a Magistrate to trouble a written order directing any character to produce a document or every other object thi...
Read more

BNSS Chapter 15 – Requirements Before Legal Proceedings Begin

Image
  Explained with all Sections (210 to 222) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Introduction The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as India's main set of rules for criminal proceedings. Among the significant changes, Chapter 15 of BNSS is important as it lays down the rules which must be followed before a criminal case can start in court. This chapter, titled "Conditions Requisite for Initiation of Proceedings", includes Sections 210 to 222. These sections address how courts take notice of offenses, when government permission is needed, and how to safeguard witnesses and public servants from unfair prosecution. This article breaks down each section in simple language and answers common questions related to BNSS Chapter 15. BNSS Section 210 – Magistrate's Recognition of Offenses This section explains when a Magistrate can acknowledge a criminal offense. In legal terms, "cognizance" mean...
Read more