Talk:Indian Penal Code

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject India / Politics (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (marked as High-importance).
Note icon
This article was last assessed in March 2016.
WikiProject Law (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sections refering to cruelty[edit]

Personally, I think the sections refering to cruelty should be moved to their own page, but am leaving it there, since it maybe a emotional issue.--IMpbt 15:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

it is indeed emotional[edit]

Section 498A is just one section IPC (Indian Penal Code).... There is only one section within IPC in Wiki, is due to the fact that there is no other discussion going on for other sections.

Anybody can add other sections or entire IPC, if they find it worth while.

So.. please do not move it to a different page..498A is part of Indian Penal Code.

forgot about the emotional part... please refer to "Misuse of 498A" section within (it is ofcourse diff wiki page).

-498aVictim Aug 20 2005

Government Sponsored Legal Terrorism - IPC 498A

You can Control TERRORISM; But you cann`t control or STOP Government Sponsored Legal Terrorism IPC - 498A.

Government can make LAW to STOP terrorism, and punish Terrorist and misusers; But who will punish Government bodies who make laws like IPC 498A, which harass more innocent than save.Which send more old aged parents to jail falsely, Even Pregnent sisters of man who is victim of ipc 498a along with breast fed children.

Supreme Court of India called, misusing 498a is a legal terrorism; still no one ready to scrap this Notorious Law nor amend it; Even they know there are more innocents are victimised.

Government knows there is mass scale of misuse; but they do not punish misuser; Law think all wives are Victims of Domestic violence.

When there is so much support for this misuse; and government blindly watch this and do nothing;

then this is Government Sponsored Terrorism than what Else. Indian Penal code 498A Misuse


I don't know what "Specialty" is referred to but that whole segment sounds like cheerleading in favour of the Penal Code without any mention of drawbacks or any such tempering language. --BlueSquadronRaven 03:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually that will be covered in a different segment. As far as the speciality of the IPC is concerned, it is undoubtedly the best law of India so far. Since no law is perfect even IPC has certain drawbacks that will be analysed in due course of time. Please keep patience and let the page develop in a holistic manner.

Praveen Dalal 09:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Needs Improvement[edit]

This article definately needs improvement; the drafting of the code has been attended to in an haphazard manner; also the write up is not very informative. The quoted reference is also no an site run by the government or creditable source. Definitely needs a re write in encyclopedia style as it is written like a piece of literature --Aileronajay 04:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

threatning me..that he will lodge false FIR against me...[edit]

the matter was i was washing my vechicle on the washing point provided by builder & society. this person comes violently to me tryed to snatch the pipe from me.he was trying to force me that i should raise hand on him so that he could complain against i didnt do so & now he is trying to harash me . so what should i do —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to ask for legal advice. It is an encyclopedia of verifiable facts only.

Needs either Major Cleanup or Deletion[edit]

This article has enormous potential for being encyclopedic yet is very poorly written (by this I do not refer to poor grammar but rather to poor "encyclopedic style") and it is missing many citations. Frankly at this stage it is litte better than a stub article. As already noted on this talk page there is a lot of bias without balance in the text. I would suggest this could be a fantastic article if it were treated as an encyclopedic entry should be. If not it should be deleted for lack of Verifiability and Reliable Sources. (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Reforms section error[edit]

The paragraph on Section 309 - punishing the unsuccessful attempt to suicide - blames "colonial society where people did not have rights of their own." Actually it mirrors an English law which was repealed in England by the Suicide Act 1961. Alansplodge (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


The phrase "principally the work of a man who had hardly held a brief, and whose time was devoted to politics and literature" is plaigarised from the preface to an edition of the Code written by W. R. Hamilton. Please revise or cite. here is the google book link

it is on page XIX ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Merging of Section 6 (and other sections in the Code)[edit]

I randomly got the Section 6 of the Indian Penal Code article as part of this month's Wikification drive. I noticed that it has very little content, and what it does have would be fairly simple to merge into this major article. Same goes for most of the other Sections so categorized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElectricValkyrie (talkcontribs) 19:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I also do agree that separate article of the section 6 of the Indian Penal Code should be merged with the Enlarged article of the Indian Penal Code as a whole. - Indian.Advocate

Suggesting a merge. The Section 6 of the Indian Penal Code article (and several of the other ones in its category) is so small that I'm not sure why it can't be part of the main Indian Penal Code article. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElectricValkyrie (talkcontribs) 19:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Support. Section 6 of the Indian Penal Code is so short that for now it does not merit a separate article. In my view, Section 6 of the Code is also rather unlikely to need its own page in the future. Moonraker (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I did the merge. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

English and local law[edit]

Did the English actually abolish local traditional law when they introduced the IPC or didn't they? Could the courts, specifically the lower courts, choose to disregard the IPC? If so, did this ever change? (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)