Forgery for purpose of cheating
Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with forgery for purpose of cheating. Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 commits forgery, intending that the document forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 468, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 336 Forgery Close, with changes 81%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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.
-
Sasikala Pushpa vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A clerical error or incorrect statement regarding date and place in a procedural document like a vakalatnama, where the party admits to the genuine signatures and provides a plausible explanation for the error, does not constitute forgery or fraud upon the court warranting criminal prosecution under Sections 193, 466, 468, and 471 IPC. Fraud requires mens rea (criminal intention) to deceive and cause wrongful gain or loss. Before exercising jurisdiction under Section 340 Cr.P.C. to direct a criminal complaint, the court must be satisfied that it is 'expedient in the interest of justice' by weighing the effect on administration of justice, not merely the injury to a person. A mere incorrect statement in a procedural document that has no bearing on the merits of the case and causes no demonstrable harm to the administration of justice does not justify criminal prosecution.
On this section: Forgery for purpose of cheating; cited as basis for FIR registration
-
D. P Gulati, Mngr. Acct. M/s Jetking Infotra vs The State of U. P & ANR
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When criminal proceedings are initiated as a counter-blast or retaliatory measure to pressure a party who has filed a prior legitimate criminal complaint against the initiator, such proceedings constitute an abuse of the process of law and should be quashed at the threshold under Section 482 CrPC, particularly when the allegations appear frivolous and the sequential filing pattern demonstrates harassment rather than genuine prosecution.
On this section: Alleged offence of forgery for purpose of cheating; cited as one of the charges from which protection was sought.
-
State Tr. Insp. of Police vs A. Arun Kumar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the initial stage of criminal proceedings when considering whether to frame charges under Sections 227-228 (or 238-239) CrPC, if material on record discloses grave suspicion against the accused that has not been properly explained, the court is fully justified in framing charges and proceeding with trial, even if the strength of suspicion would not suffice for conviction. The test for prima facie case depends on broad probabilities and total effect of documents and evidence on record, not on conviction-level proof. Documentary evidence showing material discrepancies (such as added digits inflating quantities and values in export documents) that raise grave suspicion against accused is sufficient to frame charges, notwithstanding absence of eyewitness testimony, so long as the ingredients of alleged offences are discernible on the face of the material.
On this section: Forgery for purpose of cheating - applied to forged documents presented to claim duty drawback
-
Ajoy Acharya vs State Bureau of Investigation against
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a public servant holds multiple offices and is accused of abuse of one office, sanction for prosecution is mandatory only from the authority competent to remove him from that specific office which he is alleged to have misused. If the public servant has relinquished the office allegedly abused before charge sheet is filed, no sanction is required at all, despite his continuing to hold other public offices. The requirement of sanction serves to prevent frivolous prosecutions of the specific office abused; once that office is relinquished, the protection becomes inapplicable. To require sanction from authorities controlling other unrelated offices held simultaneously would pervert the legislative intent and convert the sanction requirement into a rogue's charter enabling evasion of prosecution.
On this section: Cited in FIR for alleged fraudulent creation of documents facilitating ICDs
-
C. P. Subhash vs Insp. of Police Chennai
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a criminal complaint discloses prima facie commission of an offence with specific factual allegations, the High Court's powers to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of Constitution should not be invoked except in rare and compelling circumstances. The High Court cannot interfere with ongoing investigation merely on the ground that allegations may not be sustained on complete evidence, or that related civil proceedings are pending, or that the matter involves document authenticity which will be decided in civil suit. Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. bar on cognizance applies only to offences committed with respect to documents while they are in court custody (custodia legis), not to documents forged before being produced in court. Whether accused actually committed forgery and what offence was committed is exclusively a matter for investigation and trial, not for prejudging by the High Court at investigation stage.
On this section: Forgery and fabrication of documents. Court analyzed whether allegations prima facie disclose commission of these offences based on complaint alleging forged sale deeds used fraudulently to claim land ownership.
-
Satish Mehra vs State of N. C. T. of Delhi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A criminal trial cannot proceed on the basis of mere hope and expectation that evidence may emerge during trial. Criminal charges must be based on definite allegations prima facie establishing commission of an offence by the accused. Where no positive role of an accused is disclosed in the FIR, investigation materials, or charge sheet, and the identity of the person who authorized the alleged wrongful acts is unknown, holding the accused liable would be conjecture and not permissible in law. However, where materials on record prima facie disclose commission of an offence—such as where an accused makes endorsements on financial documents with intent to cause them to be believed as made by another person, and such documents are used to fraudulently alter account status—the High Court cannot quash charges merely because the evidence may not be conclusive, as that is the function of the trial judge.
On this section: Forgery for purpose of cheating - applied to analyze whether the forged Investment Renewal Form was created with intent to cheat.
-
Gali Janardhan Reddy vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal cases involving serious offences and powerful accused persons with demonstrated capacity to influence witnesses and even judicial officers, even when the accused has complied with bail conditions over several years, territorial restrictions on the accused's movement may be maintained if there exists a credible apprehension of witness tampering. However, the court must balance this by mandating expedited trial proceedings conducted on a day-to-day basis and directing completion within a fixed period, so that the restrictions are not indefinite and delay does not itself become a tool for creating opportunities for witness influence. The expedited trial process serves as the counterbalance to maintaining territorial restrictions, ensuring that trial integrity is protected without indefinite curtailment of the accused's liberty.
On this section: Offence of forgery for cheating cited as part of criminal charges
-
T. Nagarajan vs State Of Goa
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When A Court Frames Charges Under Section 227 Of The Criminal Procedure Code, It Must Apply The Prima Facie Standard, Whereby The Probative Value Of Evidence On All Essential Elements Must Be Sufficient To Induce The Court To Believe In The Existence Of The Facts Pertaining To Those Essential Elements Or Consider Their Existence So Probable That A Prudent Man Ought To Act Upon The Supposition That Those Facts Existed. At This Stage, There Cannot Be A Roving Enquiry Into The Pros And Cons Of The Matter Or Weighing Of Evidence As If Conducting A Trial. Where Material On Record Obligates The Court To Frame Charges And Prima Facie A Case Can Be Made Out Against The Accused, The Court Should Frame Charges Without Conducting A Thorough Examination Of Merits.
On this section: Forgery For Cheating - Discharged By High Court
-
Ramesh Rajagopal vs Devi Polymers Pvt. LTD
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When allegations of forgery and fraud are made on the basis of website content that clearly identifies a company division's connection to its parent company through visible links and shared addresses, and when no fraudulent intent can be inferred, no deceptive transactions occurred, and no person was induced to part with property or enter contracts based on such representation, the criminal allegations do not constitute a prima facie offence under Sections 463, 468, or 471 IPC or Sections 65-66 IT Act 2000. Such criminal proceedings initiated as part of a private corporate dispute constitute abuse of court process and must be quashed under Section 482 CrPC in the interests of justice.
On this section: Forgery for purpose of cheating; court found insufficient evidence of cheating or dishonest inducement
-
Monica Bedi vs State of A. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an appellate court reviews sentences in a criminal appeal, even while maintaining convictions as sustainable, it possesses the discretionary power to reduce sentences if it finds them disproportionate or excessive in relation to the nature and gravity of the offence, the circumstances of the case, and principles of proportionality in sentencing. The exercise of such discretion should be rational, not arbitrary, and should serve the dual purposes of punishment and deterrence.
On this section: Forgery for purpose of cheating - upheld, conviction maintained
-
Akanksha Pandey vs State of Chhattisgarh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused has undergone a substantial period of pre-trial incarceration (in this case, 2.5 years), the Supreme Court may exercise its discretionary powers to grant bail on grounds of extended imprisonment, notwithstanding the seriousness of charges and prior rejection by the High Court, if the totality of facts and circumstances warrants such relief.
On this section: Charge of forgery for purpose of cheating against the accused
-
Ashok Sandeep Singh vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused has been in custody for an extended period (over one year) and the High Court has continuously adjourned bail proceedings without substantive hearing, while a stay on further proceedings has already been granted by the Supreme Court, interim bail should be granted pending final hearing of the Special Leave Petition, with terms and conditions to be imposed by the competent court.
On this section: Forgery for purpose of cheating - forging documents to obtain government position
-
Bathala Gurivi Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Final Order order-1.pdf 2012-03-19 DATE VERIFIED. Crl.R.C. 2131/2004. Hyderabad HC. Isolates IPC 468 vs 471: appellate court acquits 420/468 because there is no evidence the accused made the false transit forms (468 needs forgery for cheating by the maker) and convicts 471 (using as genuine). Map ipc 468 cited only. Do not pad 471 (already filled by Chandrawanshi/Vinod). Do not successor-map ipc 468 → bns 336 (close 0.8092).
On this section: IPC 468 (forgery for cheating) needs proof the accused made the false document; using false transit forms as genuine is 471, not 468 (Bathala Gurivi Reddy). Do not successor-map ipc 468 → bns 336 (close 0.8092).
-
Naseeb Jain @ Sonu vs State Of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a criminal revision petition is interconnected with another petition and an order has been passed in the connected petition on the same date, the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the revision petition with liberty to raise all grounds before the Trial Court at the appropriate stage, allowing the trial court to consider all arguments in the context of the interconnected cases.
On this section: Forgery for purpose of cheating - charge against petitioners
-
Lalit Yadav vs State of U.p. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused has already been enlarged on bail in all related cases and the conditions under Section 19(4) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities Prevention Act, 1986 are satisfied, bail should be granted in the main case as well, subject to strict conditions ensuring appearance and compliance with trial proceedings, in accordance with the principle that bail is the rule and committal to jail is the exception.
On this section: Forgery for purpose of cheating charges
-
Shiv Kumar vs State Of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person obtains a loan from a bank by making false representations and producing false documents, with the intention to cheat the bank, and does not utilize the loan amount for the stated purpose (purchase of a vehicle), and the vehicle is never delivered despite the loan being disbursed, the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC stands established. However, in cases involving extraordinary delay in justice (39 years) and where the accused is a first-time offender with clean antecedents, the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by the accused.
On this section: Forgery for the purpose of cheating. Cited in the original complaint regarding false documents.
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.
-
… In the present case insofar as the offences under Section 193 and 196 IPC are concerned, the same relate to the execution proceedings because it is in the said proceedings that the false and fabricated decree has been produced, Whereas insofar as the offences under Sections 466, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, the same have been committed in connection with the record of the Special Civil Suit. On behalf of the petitioner it has been contended that the record of the Special Civil Suit is also a proceeding within the meaning of the expression "proceeding, therefore, even …
Questions about Section 468
What have the courts held on Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code?
Sasikala Pushpa vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Inspector of Police (07 May 2019) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Forgery for purpose of cheating; cited as basis for FIR registration. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 12 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2010 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 468 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 468, section 468 IPC, section 468 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 468 in bns and ipc 468 punishment in hindi. 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 Sasikala Pushpa vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Inspector of Police (07 May 2019).
What should I read with Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 336 (Forgery), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 468, 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.