Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punis The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Of fraudulent deeds and dispositions of property
Section 420, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 318 Cheating Close, with changes 69%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 5
- Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 Fasli s. 88
- Probation of Offenders Act s. 3 Power of court to release certain offenders after admonition
- Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act s. 28 Disqualification of membership etc. of committees
- Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders Land-Grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders and White Collar or Financial Offenders Act s. 17
- West Bengal Correctional Services Act s. 19
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-3.pdf 2024-08-23 (not same-date order-4 ROP). Pardiwala/Manoj Misra, Crl A 3114/2024. Restates the distinction between criminal breach of trust (IPC 406: entrustment + dishonest misappropriation) and cheating (IPC 420: dishonest inducement at inception). The two do not ordinarily sit together on the same facts; FIR/summoning that conflates them is liable to be quashed. Map 406/420 and successors BNS 316/318.
On this section: s.420 requires dishonest inducement at the inception of the transaction; it does not ordinarily travel with a 406 charge on the same facts.
-
Punjab State Warehousing CORP vs Bhushan Chander
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Protection under Section 197 CrPC is not available to employees of Government companies or public undertakings (even when such undertakings are 'State' within Article 12 of Constitution) for prosecution of offences. Furthermore, offences of criminal breach of trust (Section 409), forgery (Sections 467, 468, 471) and cheating (Section 420) committed by a public servant cannot reasonably be claimed to be done in discharge of official duty; rather, the official position merely provides the opportunity for commission. Sanction under Section 197 CrPC is required only when there is a reasonable connection between the criminal act and the discharge of official duty, or when the act can be done under colour of office. Acts directly and reasonably disconnected from official duty do not attract Section 197 protection.
On this section: Cheating - cited as offence that by nature cannot be regarded as committed in discharge of official duty
-
Internl. Adv. Res. Cen. for P. M. & N. M. vs Nimra Cerglass (p) Ltd.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
For an offence of cheating to be constituted under Section 420 IPC, the essential ingredients are: (i) making of a false representation; (ii) knowledge by the accused that representation is false; (iii) making the representation in order to deceive; and (iv) mens rea of dishonest inducement. Critically, the dishonest intention must exist at the time of making the inducement, not from subsequent failure to perform. A mere breach of contract, even if causing substantial financial loss, cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is demonstrated at the beginning of the transaction. When a technology transfer agreement explicitly provides for experimental development with contingency provisions for performance guarantee tests and liquidated damages, parties have contemplated possibility of failure to achieve specifications, negating the inference of dishonest intention at inception.
On this section: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property - core offence analyzed; Court held that mere breach of contract or failure to achieve specifications cannot constitute cheating unless dishonest intention existed at inception of transaction
-
Maniprasad vs State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Not every breach of contract constitutes criminal cheating. For an offense under Section 420 IPC to be made out, the complainant must establish that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise or representation. If the intention to cheat develops after the transaction is entered into, or if there is mere non-performance of a promise without initial culpable dishonest intention, no criminal offense of cheating can be said to have been committed. The real test for quashing criminal proceedings is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offense or merely constitute a civil dispute regarding breach of contract.
On this section: Cheating and Dishonestly Inducing Delivery of Property - Core issue determining that fraudulent intention at inception is required; mere later failure to perform cannot constitute this offense
-
Venkatramanan vs Sub Insp. of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
For the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC, the complainant must establish that the accused harbored fraudulent or dishonest intention at the very inception of making the promise or representation. Mere breach of contract, even with failure to perform promised services, does not constitute cheating in the absence of such fraudulent intention at the time of inception. Where allegations in a complaint disclose only breach of contract without any element of fraud or dishonesty at inception, and allowing police investigation would constitute abuse of process of court, the criminal proceedings should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
On this section: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property - primary substantive offence analyzed; Court held that mere breach of promise without fraudulent intention at inception does not constitute this offence
-
Raja Ram Kashyap vs State of U. P.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code are compoundable offences, and when the authorized persons (the person to whom property hurt is caused for Section 406, and the owner of property for Section 420) wish to compound the offence with court permission under Section 320(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the court shall permit such compounding and facilitate the settlement of the criminal dispute.
On this section: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property or making, alteration or destruction of valuable security - identified as a compoundable offence, compoundable by the owner of the property
-
Bishan Dass vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The essential ingredients of Section 420 IPC require not merely the issuance of a false document or certificate by a public servant, but specifically require proof of dishonest intention and mens rea to cause wrongful gain for himself or wrongful loss to another. The mere fact that a false certificate was issued, which resulted in some unintended consequence such as land allotment, does not suffice to establish the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC unless there is clear evidence of the accused's dishonest intention at the time of making the false statement or inducement. In contradistinction, Section 177 IPC, which deals with giving false information, requires only that a person legally bound to furnish information to a public servant furnishes as true information which he knows or has reason to believe to be false.
On this section: Conviction set aside. Section 420 requires cheating and dishonest inducement to deliver property or make/alter valuable security with mens rea. Court found no evidence of dishonest intention to cause wrongful gain for himself. Mere issuance of false certificate cannot be deemed to be with dishonest intention without such evidence.
-
Deva Ram vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (Cheating) is compoundable with the permission of the court by the person who is cheated, including the heir of a deceased victim. When parties are related to each other and have settled their disputes, the court may permit compounding resulting in acquittal of the appellant, provided there is clear evidence of settlement (such as a Deed of Compromise and affidavits from both parties) and no public interest is prejudiced.
On this section: Offence of Cheating - Applied in trial court conviction; held by Supreme Court to be compoundable with court's permission by the person who is cheated
-
Essar Teleholdings LTD vs Regr. Gen. Delhi High Court
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When offences are committed in one series of acts forming the same criminal transaction, a Special Judge appointed under Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act has the express authority under Section 4(3) of the PC Act to take cognizance of and try offences under the Indian Penal Code (such as Sections 420 and 120-B) against an accused, notwithstanding that the same offences would ordinarily be triable by a Magistrate, provided that co-accused in the same transaction are charged with offences specified in Section 3 of the PC Act. The application of Sections 220 and 223 of the Criminal Procedure Code permits such consolidated trial of co-accused charged with different offences arising from the same transaction, and the splitting of such trials would be incongruous and impractical. The High Court's Administrative Order and the State's Notification appointing a Special Judge for the 2G Spectrum cases were constitutionally valid exercises of authority under Articles 233-234 and Section 194 of the CrPC respectively, and cannot be collaterally assailed as they were premised on the Supreme Court's valid directions under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution.
On this section: The offences charged against petitioners in the second supplementary charge sheet. Court analyzed whether these offences, ordinarily triable by magistrates, could be tried by Special Judge when co-accused face PC Act charges.
-
Thermax Ltd. vs K. M. Johny
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A dispute arising purely from contractual obligations, even when it results in financial loss to the claimant, cannot be converted into a criminal offense under Sections 405, 406 or 420 IPC without establishing the essential ingredient of dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction. The appropriate remedy for breach of contract is a civil suit for damages, not criminal prosecution. When a complainant has previously filed identical complaints with police authorities which were investigated and closed as civil in nature, and thereafter files another complaint before a Magistrate suppressing such material facts and seeking criminal investigation, such action constitutes abuse of process of law. In the absence of specific statutory provision imposing vicarious liability on company directors and managers, they cannot be prosecuted under IPC sections for acts of the company. Section 34 IPC requires prior concert or meeting of minds with prearranged plan, which must be evident from the complaint itself.
On this section: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property - Court held that mere failure to pay debt does not evade debt by deception. Dishonest intention must exist at time of entering contract and must be shown that accused made wilful misrepresentation.
-
Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs Daya Sapra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The principle of res judicata and the concept of abuse of process of law do not operate to bar continuation of a civil suit merely because the accused has been acquitted in a related criminal proceeding arising from the same transaction. A judgment in a criminal proceeding, even if it results in acquittal, does not have binding effect on a parallel civil suit as the standards of proof, burden of proof, causes of action, and legal issues are fundamentally different between criminal and civil proceedings. The applicability of reverse burden provisions and statutory presumptions in criminal law must be strictly interpreted and applied with due regard to the presumption of innocence and constitutional rights of the accused, whereas in civil proceedings no such strict compliance is required. A creditor has the right to pursue both criminal and civil remedies concurrently, and the continuation of such proceedings is neither barred by law nor constitutes an abuse of process, provided the civil suit was not barred at the time of its filing.
On this section: Cited as basis for criminal complaint regarding cheating. Mentioned as one of the offences alleged in the original criminal complaint filed by the appellant.
-
Kalyani Transco vs M/s Bhushan Power and Steel Limited
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Once a Resolution Plan is duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31(2) of the IBC, the claims as provided in the Resolution Plan stand frozen and binding on all stakeholders. Claims not part of the approved Resolution Plan or the RfRP stand extinguished, and no person can initiate proceedings for such claims. The Committee of Creditors does not become functus officio after plan approval but continues to exist until full implementation or finality of appeals, with authority to monitor and supervise implementation through a monitoring committee. The commercial wisdom of the CoC in approving a Resolution Plan is paramount and non-justiciable, and courts cannot interfere with the CoC's business decisions unless the plan violates mandatory statutory provisions or is based on extraneous considerations or is ex facie arbitrary and illegal. Delay in implementation of an approved Resolution Plan does not justify setting aside the plan unless the delay is unjustified and attributable to the SRA. Compulsorily convertible debentures are treated as equity instruments as they involve mandatory conversion without repayment obligation. EBITDA generated during CIRP cannot be claimed by creditors unless specifically provided for in the RfRP or Resolution Plan. Erstwhile promoters and directors, as personal guarantors vitally interested in the Resolution Plan's outcome, have locus standi to appeal under Sections 61 and 62 of the IBC, but their appeals must be decided on merits considering their conduct during CIRP.
On this section: Criminal charges against BPSL and its directors for alleged fraud and siphoning of funds, which formed the basis of CBI FIR and ED proceedings
-
R. Shashirekha vs State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
For an offence under Section 306 IPC (abetment to suicide) to be constituted, there must be a proximate and positive act of instigation by the accused with close temporal proximity to the commission of suicide by the victim, creating a clear nexus between the act of instigation and the act of suicide. A significant time gap between the alleged instigation and the suicide, combined with the absence of any direct causal connection, is sufficient to break the nexus and preclude the constitution of the offence. However, when the High Court exercises its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR, it must examine the investigation material and provide reasoned findings as to why the material does not constitute the alleged offence, rather than making casual observations without substantive analysis.
On this section: Cheating - the Court held that the High Court erred in casually quashing proceedings under this section without examining the investigation material and providing reasons for finding no ingredients of cheating.
-
Vipin Sharma vs State Government
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused fails to appear in court due to incorrect information provided by his advocate regarding the court date, and such failure is not willful or deliberate, the court may grant bail on the ground that the non-appearance does not constitute a misuse of bail conditions, provided the accused demonstrates otherwise reliable conduct and the circumstances support release.
On this section: Cheating and criminal conspiracy charges; applied in conjunction with NDPS Act charges
-
Reena Devi vs State (govt of Nct of Delhi)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal judgment when the trial court has properly appreciated the evidence and correctly applied the burden of proof standard (beyond reasonable doubt). The acquittal judgment of the trial court is upheld when the appellate court finds no perversity or misapplication of law in the trial court's reasoning.
On this section: Charge of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property - applied to the original FIR allegations
-
State of Haryana vs Shakir @ Shahrukh, S/o- Jamil
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the prosecution case rests solely on the statements of official police witnesses without any independent corroborating witnesses, the evidence must be subjected to close scrutiny. The prosecution must establish both the actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind) of the accused, along with the causal connection between the alleged criminal acts and the accused person. Mere recovery of contraband articles does not establish the accused's involvement unless the prosecution proves the accused's direct participation in the offence. Procedural compliance, particularly the mandatory requirement to associate independent witnesses during recovery under Section 100(4) Cr.P.C., is essential for the credibility of the prosecution case. In the absence of such compliance and independent corroboration, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquittal.
On this section: Cheating by dishonestly inducing another person; court found no evidence that accused cheated the complainant (ASI Anoop Singh) by using forged number plate
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… The substantiate this argument, the appellant has submitted a detailed summary of the enforcement of the PMLA and the various amendments. The PMLA came into effect on 1st July 2005, and various predicate offences were incorporated into its schedule on different dates. Initially, Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were not included as scheduled offences under the PMLA. Section 467 IPC was originally part of the PMLA schedule (Part B), but only if the total value involved in such offences was thirty lakh rupees or more. Later, Section 420 IPC was added …
-
… Jain @ Mukesh Jain) could not be traced and declared proclaimed offender by the Trial Court on 12.02.2002. 4. The Trial Court framed charges against the accused persons for offences under Section 120B read with Sections 403, 409, 411, 420, 471, 477A and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, <span id="page-4-1"></span><span id="page-4-0"></span>2 'M/s. CN' <span id="page-5-0"></span>1860[4]( page-5-0) read with Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. While the accused nos. 1 and 2 submitted that they are …
-
… Jain @ Mukesh Jain) could not be traced and declared proclaimed offender by the Trial Court on 12.02.2002. 4. The Trial Court framed charges against the accused persons for offences under Section 120B read with Sections 403, 409, 411, 420, 471, 477A and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, <span id="page-4-1"></span><span id="page-4-0"></span>2 'M/s. CN' <span id="page-5-0"></span>1860[4]( page-5-0) read with Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. While the accused nos. 1 and 2 submitted that they are …
Questions about Section 420
What have the courts held on Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code?
Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (23 Aug 2024) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.420 requires dishonest inducement at the inception of the transaction; it does not ordinarily travel with a 406 charge on the same facts. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 13 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2009 to 2026.
How do I find court cases under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IPC 420, section 420 IPC, section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 420 in bns and ipc 420 is bailable or not. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (23 Aug 2024).
What should I read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
5 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 318 (Cheating), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, commonly called fraud, and cited as IPC 420, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.