Table of content –

1. Introduction……………………………………………………………. 1
2. Cheating sec 415 – sec 424 …………………………………………….2-6
3. Essential Ingredients of Cheating……………………………………. 6-7
4. Difference between cheating and breach of contract……………...…7-8
5. Critical Aspects referring to the Offence of Cheating………………. 8-9
6. Conclusion and Suggestion…………………………………………….9-10
 Introduction –
Cheating is finished by an individual to a different by making him believe something to be
true which actually isn't. Cheating affects a person’s body, reputation or property of which
the person is also in possession or ownership of. Cheating are often done by an individual
who is in an exceedingly fiduciary relationship, it affects the mind of the one who has been
cheated. Cheating is done by someone by misrepresenting the facts or by using false evidence
so as to deceive the opposite party. The one that is deceived believes the representations
made by the party deceiving to be true and so it further miserably affects the person both
mentally and physically. Cheating may result in stress, tension, and affect a person’s
psychological state miserably. It can even end in trust issues and make it difficult for the one
who has been cheated on to trust another person again. After being cheated on someone can
experience low self-esteem and loss in monetary form by loss of the property
Cheating is taken into account as a criminal offence under the Indian legal code. it's drained
order to realize profit or a bonus from another person by using some deceitful means. The
one that deceives another knows for the actual fact that it'd place the opposite person in an
unfair situation. Cheating as an offence will be made punishable under Section 420 of the
IPC.
One of the important ingredients which constitute the offence of cheating is deception.
Deception are often done to induce the opposite person to either deliver or retain the property
or to commit an act or omission. Deceiving means to create an individual believe what's false
to be true or to create an individual disbelieve what's faithful be false by using words or by
conduct.
In the case of K R Kumaran vs State of Kerala, an individual who was admitted within the
hospital was checked by the doctor and therefore the doctor knew that the person was during
a condition that he won’t be ready to survive. The doctor conspired with other accused to
issue a insurance policy for the person was visiting die and so as to try and do so, he certified
to be fit and healthy. This was done by accused so as to induce the number from the
insurance firm after the patient dies. The court held the accused answerable for the offence of
cheating and deceiving the non- depository financial institution so as to earn benefits. The
accused was held guilty of cheating under IPC. Cheating and misappropriation are closely
related. In cheating, the act of misrepresentation starts from the start of the act, whereas, just
in case of misappropriation it's not important that the offence of cheating will start from the
start. The accused may obtain a property in honesty so further misappropriate it so as to sell it
for a bonus. it should be done against the need or without the consent of the owner.
When one person uses deceitful practices to convince the opposite person to agree on
anything which is harmful to it person, it's called Inducement. It generally occurs when two
parties enter into a contract and a celebration uses fraudulent inducement to realize advantage
on the opposite party. The fraudulent inducement are often done when someone persuades
another by giving false information a couple of thing to be beneficial for that person but
essentially, it is not. Fraudulent inducement differs from fraud as inducement needs an
individual to convince the opposite person for the article which he wants to attain and also the
latter needs the person to commit a deceitful conduct by himself for the article which he
wants to realize. The offence of cheating doesn't necessarily need the one who is being
deceived is induced to try to to any act which could cause harm to him. just in case there's an
absence of dishonest inducement, it's enough to constitute the offence of cheating that the
person deceived is induced to an act which is probably going to cause harm to him.

Cheating sec 415 – sec 424

cheating – sec 415 - if a person fraudulent or dishonest deceives another person in order to
obtain to consent of that person to either deliver some property or retain any property induces
the person to do or not to do something ,which the person the would have done or would no t
have done if he was not deceived and as a result of this act or omission , such person has been
damaged or harmed in his body , or reputation or property then the person shall be held guilty
for cheating Sec 415 has two parts for discussion
a. It deals with fraudulently inducing a person to deliver some property
b. It includes intentionally deceiving a person to do or not to do something
Case law - G.V Rao Vs. L.H.V Prasad.
Illustration
a. A, by falsely pretending to be in the civil service intentionally deceives X and thus
dishonesty induces X to let him have on credit goods which he does not means to pay . A ,
cheats
b. A, intentionally deceives X into believe that A means to repay any money that X may lend
him and their by dishonesty induces X to lend him money A not intending to repay it. A,
cheats Sec 416 – cheating by personation – a person shall be guilty of cheating by
personation, if a cheats someone , pretending to be some other person. It shall be an offense
wither the person impersonated is either a real or Imaginate person. Personation by itself is
not an offense , unless done with a fraudulent or dishonest intention

Sec 416 – cheating by personation – a person shall be guilty of cheating by personation, if a

cheats someone, pretending to be some other person. It shall be an offense wither the person
impersonated is either a real or Imaginate person. Personation by itself is not an offense,
unless done with a fraudulent or dishonest intention

Sec 417 – punishment for cheating

Imprisonment Which may extend to 1 year or with fine or with both
Non-cognizable, bailable and compoundable at the option of the party who has been cheated.
Sec 418 – cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may ends you to person whose
interest, the offender is bound to protect – (fiduciary relationship)
If a person, either by law or by a legal contract is supposed to protect the interest.
Sec 419 – punishment for cheating by personation
Imprisonment which may extend to 3 years or with fine or with both
Nature – cognizable, bailable and compoundable at the option of the party cheated
420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. —Whoever cheats and
thereby dishonestly induces the person de-ceived 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.
421. Dishonest or fraudulent removal or concealment of property to prevent
distribution among creditors. —
Whoever dishonestly or fraudulently removes, conceals or delivers to any person, or transfer
or causes to be transferred to any person, without adequate consideration, any property,
intending thereby to pre-vent, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby prevent, the
distribution of that property according to law among his creditors or the creditors of any other
person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to two years, or with fine, or with both

CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE
Punishment—Imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or both

Nature of offense - Non-cogniz-able—Bailable—Triable by any Magistrate—

Compoundable by the credi-tor who are affected thereby with the permission of the court.
422. Dishonestly or fraudulently preventing debt being available for creditors.—
Whoever dishonestly or fraudulently prevents any debt or demand due to himself or to any
other person from being made available according to law for payment of his debts or the
debts of such other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
423. Dishonest or fraudulent execution of deed of transfer con-taining false statement of
consideration. —
Whoever dishonestly or fraudulently signs, executes or becomes a party to any deed or
instrument which purports to transfer or subject to any charge any property, or any interest
therein, and which contains any false statement relating to the consideration for such transfer
or charge, or relating to the person or persons for whose use or benefit it is really intended to
operate, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
424. Dishonest or fraudulent removal or concealment of property.— Whoever
dishonestly or fraudulently conceals or removes any property of himself or any other person,
or dishonestly or fraud-ulently assists in the concealment or removal thereof, or dishon-estly
releases any demand or claim to which he is entitled, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Essential Ingredients of Cheating

Essential Ingredients of Cheating are as follows -
• deception of any person.

• fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person or to
consent that any person shall retain any property; or

• intentionally inducing a person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he

were not so deceived, and the act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that
person in body, mind, reputation or property

The Section requires: deception of any person. Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that
person to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any
property; or
intentionally inducing a person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if
he were not so deceived, and the act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm
to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.
In the case of Nageshwar Prasad Sinha V Narayan Singh, the respondent entered into an
agreement with the accused. A part of the payment was given in exchange for the possession
which was delivered to accused. The accused then failed to make the full payment for the
delivery of possession as it was agreed upon by him. The respondent also didn’t complete the
legal formalities in relation to the delivery of possession as he did not receive full payment
for it. The accused filed a civil suit for specific performance against the respondent. The
respondent filed a criminal complaint against accused under Section 420 of the IPC. The
court held that the liability of the accused was of civil nature and not a criminal one as the
accused made a part of the payment for delivery of possession and it cannot be proved that
his intention was to cheat from the very beginning.

The difference between civil and criminal liability can be ascertained by the intention of the
accused. The intention of the accused at the time of inducement should be taken into
consideration to decide whether the liability of the accused will a civil or criminal liability.
Mere breach of contract cannot be considered to be cheating under Section 420 of IPC unless
it is proved that dishonest intention was present from the very beginning of the transaction.

Difference between cheating and breach of contract

Cheating
1.cheating it is mention under section 415 to 420 of ipc 1860
2.it is delt under criminal law
3. it is dishonest act done in order to gain advantage over other
4. intention to deceive exist at the time when inducement is made in the beginning only the
person must have done fraudulent activity
Breach of contract
1. it is mention under section 73 of Indian contact act 1872
2. it is delt under civil law
3. it is a cause of action which occurs when the binding agreement is not profound
4. it is the malice intention does not exist from the beginning of the contract

Critical Aspects referring to the Offence of Cheating

Dishonest Intention Should be Present at the Time of creating the Promise
Deception and dishonest intention are important elements to constitute the offence of
cheating
under IPC. The presence of dishonest intention is very important to carry an individual guilty
of the
offence. the very fact that dishonest intention was present at the time of creating the promise
is to be
proved so as to carry the accused guilty for the offence of cheating. Dishonest intention at the
time of constructing the promise can not be inferred by subsequent non-fulfilment of promise.
Absence of Intention to Honour the Promise at the Time of False Representation
The offence of cheating has part of fraudulent or dishonest intention from the very
beginning. When a celebration makes a false representation to a different party so as to
realize some
profit, the intention to honour the promise at the time of false representation is presumed to
be
absent.
Dishonesty is Causing Either Wrongful Gain or Wrongful Loss
Acting dishonestly is defined under Section 24 of IPC as doing an act or omitting to try to to
any act
which causes a wrongful gain to at least one person or a wrongful loss of a property to a
specific
person. The act worn out order to achieve a property wrongfully or cause a loss to a different
person
wrongfully is claimed to be done dishonestly.
False Pretence to be Inferred From Circumstances and False statements and representations
made with fraudulent intent so as to realize a profit by
cheating are called a misdemeanour. it's not necessary that each pretence are a false one,
it has to be inferred from the circumstances. for example, an individual may have induced the
credit or delivery of property but still, it would not be sufficient because it will be a
misdemeanour and therefore the credit or delivery wouldn't are given or delivered. A
violation will be used where the party wants to come back in an exceedingly contract with the
opposite party. There should be an intention to cheat,deceive or commit fraud on the a part of
an individual. Intention to commit cheating plays a crucial
part. infraction must be inferred from the circumstances of the case. Mens Rea as Essential
Ingredients of the Offence of Cheating Mens rea refers to the condition or intention of an
individual in committing a criminal offense. it's a mental
state of the accused which is taken into consideration while deciding the liability for a
criminal offense. Mens rea should be proved because it a necessary ingredient for the offence
of cheating. it's to be proved that the accused deliberately committed the offence of cheating
with a prearranged plan.
If provision for the offence is proved then the accused is held to blame for the offence of
cheating under IPC. Damage to Body, Mind, Reputation or Property Caused or Likely to be
Caused Cheating is completed by an individual to a different by making him believe
something to be true which actually isn't. Cheating affects a person’s body, reputation or
property of which the person may be in possession or ownership of. Cheating may be done by
someone who is during a fiduciary relationship, it affects the mind of the one who has been
cheated. Cheating may be done by a person by misrepresenting the facts or by using false
evidence so as to deceive the opposite party.
The one who is deceived believes the representations made by the party deceiving to be true
and then it further miserably affects the person both mentally and physically.
When no Damage Caused to Complainant
In case when no damages are caused to the complainant by the act of cheating, still the
accused
according to Section 420 of the IPC are answerable for the offence of cheating because it
does create an
apprehension within the mind of a personal when he's cheated on by someone. The intention
and
objective of the person cheating also are taken into consideration and if it's found that the
accused had a malafide intention to lead on the person then the accused are going to be held
guilty for
the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC.
The intention of the accused is very important and should be taken into consideration while
deciding
the guilt of the accused. Generally, the complaint is filed under Section 420 of IPC when a
person suffers from a defect within the services or product which is consumed by him from
the cheater, or just in case the individual is charged with more price than the MRP for a
product or a service, or when someone suffers from losses and damages from unfair trade
practices etc. but in
case if the person cheated on doesn't suffer from a monetary loss or damage, the accused can
still be held answerable for cheating under Section 420 of the IPC.
When no Benefit Accrued to Accused but Loss to Complainant

Even if the accused doesn't earn a profit or enjoys a benefit but the complainant suffers a loss
then the complainant can bring an action for cheating under IPC.
Sustaining Loss, not a Criterion for Establishing the Offence of Cheating
Under sec 420 of IPC, only an individual who isn't a consumer of the said cheated goods or
didn't purchase the services or goods for commercial and selling purpose or isn't entitled to
enjoy the benefits from the products or services isn't entitled to sue the accused for cheating
under IPC. A consumer or an individual entitled to profit from the products or services can
sue the accused for the offence of cheating irrelative of the very fact whether any loss was
suffered by him or not. whether or not the complainant doesn't sustain a loss, he can still
bring a lawsuit under IPC for cheating.

Conclusion and Suggestion

A person could also be entrusted with a closed receptacle, for any purpose, whether by way
of security or for safe custody. In either case, if it's closed and deposited, the deposited has no
right to open it, but if he opens it, he commits no offence unless his intention was dishonest
or mischievous. If however, he's given authority to open it, his opening it dishonestly isn't
punishable, though he would be, of course, liable under the overall law for any offence he
may commit respecting it. The scope of this section is extremely limited today. There are
very limited cases regarding an offence u/s 462 because the act under this section being
triable as a summons case, the framing of a formal charge isn't necessary u/s 251 of Cr PC.
the opposite reason are often that opening any receptacle without permission is taken into
account as just a civil act of trespass and majorly not reported.
A layman doesn't consider it as a grave offence and thus it gets neglected if the accused isn't
able to fulfil his intention of maybe theft or mischief. Trespass to chattels requires
interference with the products and also the person is liable as soon as he interferes with the
property. there's no requirement that the claimant suffers damage; once the interference has
been established, the act is actionable in and of itself. Moreover, the difference of trust
between section 461 and 462 made the offence under section 462 more grave and thus
punishment was increased to a few years than two years. But, the offence under 461 is non-
bailable which under 462 is bailable although considered to be
graver. The act under this section makes an individual responsible for 3 years of
imprisonment or fine or both. Along with this act, the act of intention to commit mischief or
dishonesty and breach of trust is also committed. Will the person be chargeable for these acts
just in case the act is completed which they intend to do like theft or mischief? Or, since the
act isn't completed, it'll be considered as
an inchoate offence. But, as soon because the receptacle is broken open or unfastened, the
offence is complete