The Offence of Cheating

The Section 420 Indian Penal Code 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.

The only person who is not entitled to sue the accused for cheating under the Indian Penal Code is a person who is not a consumer of the said cheated goods, did not purchase the services or goods for commercial and selling purposes, or is not entitled to benefit from the goods or services. A consumer or other person who is entitled to benefit from the goods or services can bring a lawsuit against the accused for the crime of cheating, regardless of whether he or she has suffered a loss as a result of the act.

Cheating is a civil as well as a criminal offence, and if there is no benefit received by the other party and a loss has been inferred to the party who has been cheated, the complainant company may file a lawsuit against the accused for cheating in that situation. According to the decision in the case of Sebastian vs R. Jawaharaj, it was determined that the accused was liable under sections 420 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code for cheating and forgery, respectively, because he cheated on the complainant by providing faulty services to him, but the accused received no benefit as a result of providing faulty services, and the complainant suffered losses as a result of the accused’s actions.

Cheating is a non – bailable offence punishable with imprisonment for 7 years and fine.

Mere dishonoring of the cheque cannot be construed as an act with a deliberate intention to cheat. The offence of dishonoring a cheque is maintained under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, whereas the offence of cheating is mentioned under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code Dishonor of Cheque, on the other hand, can be considered a form of cheating in some circumstances.
The person who issued the cheque is dishonest if, for example, he has already closed his bank account but continues to issue a cheque to another person in exchange for payment of goods he has purchased from that person despite knowing that the cheque will bounce. By doing so, the person has deceived the other because he was well aware of the consequences of his actions from the beginning. As a result, this may be an instance in which an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code can be established for cheque dishonor.

No, not all money claims constitute cheating. Every case must be decided on the basis of the evidence presented. In the recent case of Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v. Government of Gujarat that the appellant’s mere failure to refund the loan sum cannot give rise to criminal liability for theft until the dishonest or fraudulent intention is revealed right from the onset of the contract because the mens rea of this individual is the crux of the crime, and this individual’s mens rea is the crux of the crime. This case was also cited in Nagarajan v. Jinnah Saheb, which was decided in the same year. Providing a cheque in lieu of money due with the knowledge that the drawer did not have sufficient funds in the bank would not constitute cheating in the absence of any evidence to show that the individual to whom the cheque was issued part with any property or did something that should not have been done if the cheque had been dishonored, the court ruled. A civil dispute arising out of the appellants’ failure to refund the remaining balance of the advance was found not to be the equivalent of cheating or a criminal breach of trust in the case of Dalip Kaur & Ors v. Jagnar Singh & Anr.

Recently, in the case of ARCI v. Nimra Cerglass Technics (P) Ltd., (2016) 1 SCC 348, the Supreme Court explained the difference between a breach of contract and the cheating offence. The line between a breach of contract and an offence of cheating is extremely fine in this context. However, it is dependent on the intention of the accused at the time of inducement, which can be judged by subsequent conduct; however, the subsequent conduct cannot be the sole test. An intention to defraud or deceive must be demonstrated right at the start of the transaction in order for it to be considered valid. If a person fails to follow through on his or her promise later on, this does not imply that he or she had a culpable intention not to fulfill his or her part of the contract or to keep his or her promise later on. Therefore, a mere breach of contract or a promise not kept (even if it leads to a monetary loss) may not always amount to an offence of cheating.

When a cheating offence is committed, the intention to cheat exists from the beginning, and the victim’s parting with his or her property occurs only as a result of the dishonest or fraudulent inducement of the offender. No set of facts can ever present itself in which the elements of both crimes are satisfied at the same time. As a result, the offences of Cheating and Breach of Trust cannot coexist in the same set of facts and must be treated as diametrically opposed to one another.

Cheating and misappropriation are closely associated with one another. In the case of cheating, the act of misrepresentation begins at the beginning of the act, whereas in the case of misappropriation, it is not necessary that the act of cheating begin at the beginning of the act. In some cases, the accused may acquire property in good faith and then misappropriate it in order to sell it for a profit. It is possible to do this against the will or without the consent of the property owner(s).
Misappropriation is typically carried out by someone who is a relative, friend, or well-known individual. The crime of misappropriation is defined in Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code. It only deals with immovable property and not with the body, the mind, the reputation, or any other type of immovable property.

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) does not allow for a breach of promise action in the case of deception and cheating with a false promise of marriage unless and until the parties have entered into a contract to marry one another. There are no specific requirements for how the contract should be drafted or assembled. It is not required to be in writing, and there is no specific set of words that must be used in order for a marriage contract to be valid.
A promise to marry made by one person to another will not be considered a legally binding promise unless and until the other person makes a similar promise to marry the first person in return. When two parties’ actions are consistent with one another, it is possible that they have made a mutual promise to marry. Until his proposal is communicated to the person to whom he intends to marry, a declaration of intention to marry another person made to a third party will not be considered as a valid promise and offer to marry. The mutual promises between the parties do not have to be made at the same time, but they should be made within a reasonable time after the offer is made by one party to the other.