Section 172: False report of a criminal offence
Statutory text (Thai original)
ผู้ใดแจ้งข้อความอันเป็นเท็จเกี่ยวกับความผิดอาญาแก่พนักงานอัยการ ผู้ว่าคดี พนักงานสอบสวนหรือเจ้าพนักงานผู้มีอำนาจสืบสวนคดีอาญา ซึ่งอาจทำให้ผู้อื่นหรือประชาชนเสียหาย ต้องระวางโทษจำคุกไม่เกินสองปี หรือปรับไม่เกินสี่หมื่นบาท หรือทั้งจำทั้งปรับ หมายเหตุ: [อัตราโทษ แก้ไขเพิ่มเติมโดยมาตรา ๔ แห่งพระราชบัญญัติแก้ไขเพิ่มเติมประมวลกฎหมายอาญา (ฉบับที่ ๒๖) พ.ศ. ๒๕๖๐]
English translation
Whoever gives a false statement concerning a criminal offence to a public prosecutor, a prosecuting officer, an inquiry official, or an official having authority to investigate criminal cases, in a manner likely to cause injury to another person or to the public, shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding two years, or a fine not exceeding forty thousand baht, or both.
ThaiLawOnline translation, written from the Thai original and verified
Firm annotation
Section 172 is the specific false-report offence for criminal matters, sitting between the general false-statement offence in Section 137 and the more serious framing offences in Sections 173 and 174. Its elements are: (1) a false statement concerning a criminal offence; (2) made to a public prosecutor, case prosecutor, inquiry official or official empowered to investigate criminal cases; and (3) which may cause damage to another or the public. The falsity and the criminal-justice recipient distinguish it from Section 137, while the aggravated framing offence under Section 174, especially its second paragraph read with Section 181, applies where the false report is made to have someone punished, with far heavier penalties for framing them for grave offences. Where the same conduct also defames, defamation counts under Sections 326 or 328 may be added.
Why this matters in practice
Exposure is up to two years, but the real risk is escalation: a false criminal complaint can pull in the framing offences under Sections 173 and 174, and the second paragraph of Section 174 read with Section 181 carries much heavier penalties where the false report aims to have someone punished for a grave crime. The Supreme Court has distinguished simple false reporting under Section 172 from that aggravated framing, so the exact allegation and intent matter greatly. A recurring defence is that the report was made in good faith on a genuine belief that an offence occurred. Filing, or defending against, a criminal complaint you suspect is false is high-stakes, so understand how false-report and fraud allegations interact and take legal advice early.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1575/2563 (2020)
Conduct may constitute only the offence of making a false statement about a criminal offence to an inquiry official or investigating officer under Section 172, and not the aggravated offence under Section 174 paragraph two and Section 181(2) of falsely reporting a crime to frame a person for an offence punishable by death or life imprisonment, which requires that heightened framing intent.
The Court distinguished the ordinary false-report offence under Section 172 from the aggravated framing offence under Section 174 paragraph two read with Section 181(2). It held the conduct fell within Section 172 only, because the aggravated offence requires an intent to have the person punished for a very serious offence, illustrating how charge selection turns on the reporter's intent.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Cited in 166 Supreme Court decisions (1961 to 2024)
Selected citing decisions
- Decision 5796/2567 (2024)
- Decision 3307/2566 (2023)
- Decision 1575/2563 (2020)
- Decision 981/2561 (2018)
- Decision 11108/2557 (2014)
- Decision 1076/2551 (2008)
- Decision 133/2548 (2005)
- Decision 7903/2547 (2004)
This list is selected automatically, weighted towards judgments that turn on this section rather than ones that merely recite it when passing sentence. It has not yet been reviewed by the firm.
Most often cited alongside
- Section 173 93
- Section 174 91
- Section 137 68
- Section 83 58
- Section 91 53
- Section 90 32
Sections that appear in the same judgments as this one most often. The figure is the number of decisions.
Counted across the firm's corpus of 83,652 Supreme Court decisions, 1921 to 2026. The count is complete; the stated year range trims rare outliers so it describes where the citations actually sit. These figures are computed by us and are not official court statistics. How we count these, and what we measured
Frequently asked questions
How is Section 172 different from the aggravated framing offence?
Section 172 punishes a false statement about a crime that may cause damage. The Supreme Court has held that this alone does not amount to the aggravated framing offence under Section 174 paragraph two read with Section 181, which requires an intent to have someone punished for a grave offence.
Is a good-faith mistaken report an offence under Section 172?
The offence requires a false statement. A report made in good faith on a genuine belief that an offence occurred is a common line of defence, since the section targets knowingly false statements about a crime.
Related guides on ThaiLawOnline
Cite this section
-
Plain citation
Penal Code, s. 172 (Thailand) -
Academic citation
Penal Code (Thailand), s. 172. ThaiLawOnline, https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-penal-code/section-172/ (accessed 17 August 2026). -
Thai citation
ป.อ. มาตรา 172 -
Permalink
https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-penal-code/section-172/ -
Embed on your site
<blockquote cite="https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-penal-code/section-172/"><p>Whoever gives a false statement concerning a criminal offence to a public prosecutor, a prosecuting officer, an inquiry official, or an official having authority to investigate criminal cases, in a manner likely to cause injury to another person or to the public, shall be liable…</p><footer>Penal Code, s. 172 (Thailand) — <a href="https://www.thailawonline.com/thai-penal-code/section-172/">ThaiLawOnline</a></footer></blockquote>
The Thai text is authoritative. The English is an unofficial translation by ThaiLawOnline, free to reuse with attribution.