Article 176: Repentance for a false charge

Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section

1. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 8426/2558 (2015)

   Withdrawing a criminal complaint that terminates the right to prosecute is treated as submitting to the court in the same way as withdrawing a charge, so the offender receives the benefit of Section 176 and the court may impose a lesser penalty or none.

   The first defendant withdrew the complaint, terminating the right to prosecute under the Criminal Procedure Code, and the court dismissed the case. The Supreme Court held this was a submission to the court equivalent to withdrawing a charge under Section 176, so the penalty was properly reduced.

2. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 15243/2557 (2014)

   Withdrawing a false charge during the preliminary examination, before the court has ordered the charge accepted for trial, still gives the court discretion under Section 176 to impose a lesser penalty or none at all.

   The defendants withdrew the charge while the case was still at the preliminary examination stage. The Court held that withdrawal at that stage does not alter their liability but does leave the court with discretion under Section 176 to mitigate or waive the penalty.

3. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 15232/2553 (2010)

   Section 176 is a penalty-mitigation provision; when a defendant withdraws the false criminal charge brought against the plaintiff before judgment, the defendant is regarded as having submitted to the court and qualifies for its benefit.

   Addressing whether a defendant's withdrawal fell within Section 176, the Court quoted the provision and confirmed it is a mitigation clause; withdrawing the false charge against the plaintiff before judgment brought the defendant within its scope.

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.