CHEATING

UNDER THE INDIAN PENAL CODE

 INTRODUCTION 
Cheating is defined under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code as whoever,
fraudulently or dishonestly deceives a person in order to induce that person to
deliver a property to any person or to consent to retain any property. If a person
intentionally induces a person to do or omit to do any act which he would not have
done if he was not deceived to do so and the act has caused harm to that person in
body, mind, reputation or property, then the person who fraudulently, dishonestly
or intentionally induced the other person is said to cheat. Any dishonest
concealment of facts which can deceive a person to do an act which he would not
have done otherwise is also cheating within the meaning of this section.
CRITICAL ASPECTS RELATING TO
THE OFFENCE OF CHEATING
1. Dishonest Intention Should be Present at the Time of Making the
Promise,
2. Absence of Intention to Honour the Promise at the Time of False
Representation,
3. Dishonesty is Causing Either Wrongful Gain or Wrongful Loss,
4. False Pretence to be Inferred From Circumstances &
5. Mens Rea as Essential Ingredients of the Offence of Cheating.
 ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF
CHEATING
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.
 DECEPTION 
 Deceiving means to make a person believe what is false to be true or
to make a person disbelieve what is true to be false by using words or
by conduct.( K R Kumaran vs State of Kerala, 1961 CrilJ 98 ).
 It has to be shown that the misrepresentation made was false to the
accused's knowledge at the time when it was made and the intention
was to mislead a person. If the representation is made innocently, it
will not amount to deception . A statement purely affecting the future
will not suffice.
 CHEATING AND
MISAPPROPRIATION
 Cheating and misappropriation are closely related. In cheating,
the act of misrepresentation starts from the beginning of the act,
whereas, in case of misappropriation it is not important that the
offence of cheating will start from the beginning. The accused
may obtain a property in good faith and then further
misappropriate it in order to sell it for an advantage. It may be
done against the will or without the consent of the owner. 
 DECEPTION AND CHEATING IN CONNECTION
WITH FALSE PROMISE OF MARRIAGE
 A promise by one person to marry another will not be a binding
promise unless and until that other person also reciprocates and
promises to marry the first person. A declaration of intention to marry
another person made to a third person will not constitute a proper
promise and an offer to marry unless his proposal is communicated to
that person whom he intends to marry. It is not necessary that the
mutual promises between the parties to be concurrent, it should be
made within a reasonable time after the offer is made by a party to
another. An action for breach of promise to marry may be taken under
deception and cheating.
 FRAUDULENT OR DISHONEST
INTENTION
 Sec. 415 requires that firstly a person must deceive and secondly he must also
induce another with the intention to deceive. In other words, it requires the
deceiving of a person as well as inducing him with intention to cause wrongful
gain to one person or wrongful loss to another.
 An act may be 'dishonest' and yet not "fraudulent' Deception is essential for fraud
but not for dishonesty and wrongful gain or wrongful loss of property is
necessary for dishonesty but not for fraud. A dishonest intention' is intention to
cause loss of specified property belonging to a particular person. Fraudulently on
the other hand may refer to injury in respect of unspecified property, to unknown
and unascertained persons. [R. Prakash, O.P. Srivastava's Principles of Criminal
Law, Fifth Edn., pp. 31-32 (2010)].
 In Uma Datta v Mahadevan, 1993 CrLJ 3231 (Ori), a woman pledged her gold
ornaments for a loan from a bank. When given a notice, she cleared up the dues
but the bank manager refused to release her ornaments on the pretext that her
husband, a former bank employee, was involved in some cases of fraud on the
bank. It was held that the manager’s act did not speak of dishonest intention and
he was not guilty of cheating.
 Rajesh Bajaj State NCT of Delhi 1999 SC Supreme held that many cheatings
were committed the course commercial also money transactions. The crux
postulate is intention the person who induces the victim of representation and not
the nature of transaction would become in discerning there was cheating not. In
this case the did not honour payment receipt invoices. The complainant realised
later that the intentions of the accused were not clear. Further, the accused after
receiving the goods sold them to others and still did pay the money.
 ANY PROPERTY
The 'property' been used in widest in Sec. 415; it may be movable
immovable. does not have pecuniary value, it becomes a thing of value
in the hand of the cheater. Thus, documents like passport, admit-cards,
etc. are also property' under this section.
 INDUCEMENT
 Mere deception is not itself sufficient to continue cheating. It will be cheating
only when on account of the deception practiced, the complaint is induced to
deliver or part with property or to do or omit to do certain acts which were
detrimental to his interest.
 A prostitute, who while suffering from AIDS, communicates the disease to a
person who has sexual intercourse with her may be charged with cheating under
Sec. 417 or 420, if the intercourse was induced by any misrepresentation on her
part. In Rakma (1886) 11 Bom 59, a prostitute communicated syphilis to a man
who had sexual intercourse with her on the strength of her representation that she
was free from disease. She was held guilty of cheating
 the Calcutta High Court in Hari Majhe v State, 1990 CrLJ 650, held
that if a full grown girl consents to the act of sexual intercourse on a
promise of marriage and continues to indulge in such activity until she
becomes pregnant, it is an act of promiscuity on her part and not an
act induced by misconception of fact, unless the court can be assured
that from-the-very-inception the accused never really intended to
marry her.
 Taking only thumb impression on blank paper may be a preparation to
cheat but unless the body is filled up neither there is cheating nor
attempt to cheating (Sheo Prasad AIR 1926 Pat 267).
PUNISHMENT FOR CHEATING 
1. Cheating and Dishonestly Inducing Delivery of Property 
2. Cheating by Personation
3. Cheating Out of Fiduciary Relation
CHEATING AND DISHONESTLY INDUCING
DELIVERY OF PROPERTY 
 Under Section 420 of IPC, it is necessary to prove that the complainant was
acting on a representation which was a false representation and the accused had a
dishonest intention for it.
 In the case of Ishwarlal Girdharilal vs the State of Maharashtra, it was observed
by the Court that the word ‘property’ mentioned under Section 420 of IPC does
not necessarily include only those properties which have money or market value.
It also includes those properties which do not have a monetary value. In case a
property does not have a monetary value for the person who is in possession of it
but after being cheated by another person it becomes a property of some
monetary value for the person who gets possession of it by cheating then it can be
considered as an offence of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC and the
property will be considered as a property under Section 420 of the IPC. 
 CHEATING BY PERSONATION
 Under Section 416 of IPC, cheating by personation is explained as if a person
cheats on someone by pretending to be a particular person, or if a person
knowingly substitutes a particular person for another, or represents a person to be
some other person then he is said to cheat by personation.
 In the case of Sushil Kumar Datta vs State, the accused personated himself as a
scheduled caste candidate and appeared for the examination of Indian
Administrative Service. He was appointed in that cadre because of his false
representation of being a scheduled caste. It was held by the court that he was
guilty of the offence of cheating by personation under Section 416 of IPC as he
did not belong to scheduled caste and falsely represented himself as scheduled
caste and hence, his conviction for cheating was held to be justified under the
said section. 
 CHEATING OUT OF
 FIDUCIARY
A fiduciary relationship is any relationshipRELATION
which exists between two parties where they share utmost
good faith and confidence for a transaction. Section 418 of IPC deals with the cases in which trust
exists between the parties and there is an abuse of the trust by cheating. Section 418 punishes those
parties in the case of cheating who owed a special responsibility towards the other party. The parties
are punished for misusing and breaching the trust which existed between them.
 In the case of S. Shankarmani v. Nibar Ranjan Parida, a lawsuit was filed for cheating by a landlord
against the bank. The bank wanted to take the landlord’s house on hire and for that, the landlord
furnished his house. He incurred a huge expense in furnishing the house but the bank because of some
reasons which were under its control could not take the house on rent. The bank did not intend to
cheat or deceive the landlord. It was held by the court that the bank was not liable for cheating under
Section 418 as the intention which plays an important part in the offence was not present.
 CONCLUSION
Cheating is an offence under IPC in which a person induces the other by deceiving
the person to do any act or to omit to do an act. The intention of the accused plays
an important part and is taken into consideration while deciding his liability. The
two main elements that have to be considered in order to constitute the offence is
deception and inducement. The intention to cheat on part of the accused at the time
of making a false representation is needed to be proved. It must be shown that a
promise was made by the accused and he failed to keep the promise and further, no
effort was put in by him in order to keep the promise.