420. 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 punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.


Punishment—Imprisonment for 7 years and fine—Cognizable—Non-bailable—Triable by Magistrate of the first class—Compoundable by the person cheated with the permission of the court.

IPC, 1860,  Section 420/34 – Complaint for taking action for the offence under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code alleging, inter alia, that though the property was put as a mortgage with the Bank, the same was not disclosed to him and without disclosing the same the property in question was sold -  It was submitted that despite having the knowledge of the mortgage of the property with the Bank, thereafter the complainant himself had paid the mortgage money to the Bank and got it redeemed even got the sale deed executed in his favour - Even considering the nature of allegations in the complaint, we are of the firm opinion that no case is made out for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 420/34 IPC -  The case involves a civil dispute and for settling a civil dispute, the criminal complaint has been filed, which is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.                                                                                                           

Held, it is required to be noted that after having come to know that the property was mortgaged with the Bank, the original complainant himself paid the mortgage money and got the mortgage redeemed. Not only that, thereafter, he got the sale deed executed in his name. Thereafter also, he filed the complaint with the learned Magistrate, being an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., which came to be rejected by the learned Magistrate. The said order was not assailed by the complainant. Thereafter he filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. which was pending before the learned Magistrate. Despite the above, he filed a writ petition before the High Court, which is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The criminal proceedings have been initiated by the original complainant to settle the civil dispute. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Investigating Officer and other police officers were justified in not registering the FIR and in coming to the conclusion that the complaint be filed.

2019 SCeJournal 859

IPC, Section 420, 406 read with Section 34 – Under agreement for availing of intellectual services for marketing the products of the complainant, the accused did not pay the amount due and payable under the agreement  –  Merely because the accused might not have paid the amount due and payable under the agreement or might not have paid the amount in lieu of one month Notice before terminating the agreement by itself cannot be said to be a cheating and/or having committed offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC as alleged – FIR quashed – Cr. P.C. Section 482. (2018)2 SCeJ 1872

Register SCeJ  Free Updates*

Supreme Court e@journal

Subscribe or take a 4 week FREE trial 

Note: Please fill out the fields marked with an asterisk.