The section that replaced IPC 415, 417, 418 and 420 on 1 July 2024 — with three of the four punishments raised. Which sub-section actually applies to you, why a broken promise is not a crime, how a complaint is filed in Delhi when the police will not register one, and what the law now offers for getting the money back.
Section 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is the cheating section, and it has four sub-sections that behave very differently. Sub-section (1) defines cheating. Sub-section (2) punishes simple cheating — three years, non-cognizable, bailable. Sub-section (3) covers cheating a person whose interest you were bound to protect — five years. Sub-section (4), the old Section 420 IPC, covers cheating and dishonestly inducing the delivery of property — seven years and a fine, cognizable and non-bailable.
Only 318(4) is cognizable. An FIR does not lie on 318(2) or 318(3) alone.
The one rule that decides most of these cases: the dishonest intention must exist at the time of the inducement. A promise honestly made and later broken is a breach of contract, not a crime — and the Supreme Court has said repeatedly that a culpable intention at the beginning cannot be presumed from a later failure to perform.
Section 318 and Section 316 (criminal breach of trust) cannot both be charged on the same transaction. Cheating means there was never a lawful entrustment; breach of trust means there was. The Supreme Court held in Delhi Race Club (2024) that they are mutually exclusive.
For online fraud, call 1930 and report on cybercrime.gov.in first — before the police station. Then notify your bank in writing: under the RBI framework, notifying within three working days can mean zero liability, and the burden of proving you were liable is on the bank.
More changed here than in most of the BNS. The old scattered sections were gathered into one section with four sub-sections, and three of the four punishments went up.
| Offence | Old law | New law | Punishment then | Punishment now |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Definition of cheating | Section 415 IPC | 318(1) BNS | Definitional — nobody is charged under it | |
| Simple cheating | Section 417 IPC | 318(2) BNS | 1 year | 3 years |
| Cheating a person whose interest you were bound to protect | Section 418 IPC | 318(3) BNS | 3 years | 5 years |
| Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property | Section 420 IPC | 318(4) BNS | 7 years | 7 years |
| Definition of cheating by personation | Section 416 IPC | 319(1) BNS | Definitional | |
| Cheating by personation | Section 419 IPC | 319(2) BNS | 3 years | 5 years |
| Criminal breach of trust | Sections 405–409 IPC | 316 BNS | See below | |
This is not a technicality. Which sub-section your complaint discloses decides whether the police can register an FIR at all, whether the accused walks out on bail as of right, and how long you have to complain.
| Sub-section | What it covers | Punishment | Can an FIR be registered? |
|---|---|---|---|
| 318(2) | Cheating where no property was delivered — a person was deceived and did something, or omitted to do something, that harmed them | Up to 3 years, or fine, or both | No — non-cognizable |
| 318(3) | Cheating a person whose interest the accused was bound to protect, by law or by a legal contract — the fiduciary case | Up to 5 years, or fine, or both | No — non-cognizable |
| 318(4) | Cheating and dishonestly inducing the delivery of property, or the making, altering or destruction of a valuable security | Up to 7 years and fine | Yes — cognizable, non-bailable |
In almost every real fraud, money or property changed hands, so 318(4) is the sub-section that applies. But that has to appear on the face of the complaint. A complaint that says "he cheated me" without setting out what was delivered, when and on the strength of what representation, invites the police to treat it as a non-cognizable matter and send you to the Magistrate.
| Replaces | Sections 415, 417, 418 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 |
| In force from | 1 July 2024 |
| 318(2) — simple cheating | 3 years · non-cognizable · bailable · any Magistrate · compoundable by the person cheated, no court permission needed · 3-year limitation |
| 318(3) — fiduciary cheating | 5 years · non-cognizable · bailable · any Magistrate · compoundable with court permission · no limitation |
| 318(4) — inducing delivery of property | 7 years and fine · cognizable · non-bailable · Magistrate of the first class · compoundable with court permission · no limitation |
| 319(2) — cheating by personation | 5 years · cognizable · bailable · any Magistrate |
| 316(2) — criminal breach of trust | 5 years · cognizable · non-bailable · compoundable with court permission |
| Who may compound | The person cheated — not the police, and not a third party |
Stripped to its elements, cheating under Section 318(1) is:
Two of these are usually not in dispute. The money went. The complainant lost it. The fight is almost always about the fourth — the state of mind — and about when that state of mind existed.
If you read only one section of this page, read this one.
"It is the intention which is the gist of the offence."
"To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise."
"From his mere failure to keep up promise subsequently such a culpable intention right at the beginning ... cannot be presumed."
The consequence is that a business that failed, a builder who ran out of money, a borrower whose cheque bounced, a supplier whose goods never arrived — none of these is a criminal by reason of the failure alone. The question is what was in the person's mind on the day they made the promise, and that has to be shown by evidence about that day, not by pointing at the outcome.
"Every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those cases breach of contract would amount to cheating where there was any deception played at the very inception."
The courts have returned to this repeatedly, and recently under the new law itself. In a decision of August 2026 the Supreme Court quashed an FIR registered under Sections 318(4) and 316(2) BNS arising out of a distributorship dispute in which a substantial advance had been paid, holding that the exercise of a power under the terms of a contract is not by itself an act of deception, that a culpable intention at the time of a promise cannot be presumed merely from a failure to keep it, and that the information did not allege the one thing without which cheating cannot exist — a dishonest intention at the time of the inducement.
In another decision of the same month the Court repeated that a mere breach of contract cannot give rise to a prosecution for cheating unless a fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. And in Naresh Kumar v. State of Karnataka (2024) it said the High Court must see whether a dispute essentially civil in nature has been given the cloak of a criminal offence.
Since intention at the inception cannot be presumed, it has to be shown. What courts have accepted as pointing to it:
Notice that all of these are facts about the beginning or about conduct that reveals the beginning. None of them is "he did not pay me back".
Section 316 of the BNS is criminal breach of trust. Its sub-sections carry very different sentences: 316(2) is the general offence at five years; 316(3) covers a carrier or wharfinger and 316(4) a clerk or servant, both at seven; and 316(5), which covers a public servant, banker, merchant or agent, carries imprisonment for life or up to ten years.
Complaints routinely charge 318(4) and 316(2) together. That is a contradiction, and the Supreme Court addressed it squarely.
The Court held that the two offences "cannot co-exist simultaneously in the same set of facts" — that "they are mutually exclusive and different in basic concept."
On the difference: "For cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time of making a false representation i.e., since inception. In criminal breach of trust, mere proof of entrustment is sufficient."
And on summoning: "Issuance of summons is a serious matter and, therefore, should not be done mechanically" — "The Magistrate is not to act as a post office."
The logic is simple once seen. Cheating means the property was obtained by deception — so it was never lawfully entrusted. Breach of trust means the property was lawfully entrusted and then misappropriated. Both cannot be true of the same handover.
Section 319(1) defines cheating by personation: pretending to be someone else, or knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing that you or another person is someone other than who you really are. Section 319(2) punishes it with up to five years, a rise from three under the old Section 419 IPC.
This is the section that fits most modern impersonation frauds — the caller claiming to be from a bank, the fake officer, the fake recruiter, the profile in somebody else's name. It is usually charged alongside Section 318(4), and where a computer resource was used, alongside the identity-theft and personation provisions of the Information Technology Act, which carry their own penalties.
The complaint is made at the police station in whose area the deception took place or the property was delivered — not necessarily where you live, and not necessarily where the accused lives. Where the fraud was online, the reporting portal handles the jurisdiction question and the complaint is routed.
| Court complex | Broadly serves |
|---|---|
| Tis Hazari | Central and West Delhi |
| Rohini | North and North-West Delhi |
| Karkardooma | East, North-East and Shahdara |
| Saket | South and South-East Delhi |
| Dwarka | South-West Delhi |
| Patiala House | New Delhi district |
Delhi has more police districts than judicial districts and the boundaries do not map neatly. Confirm the current allocation from the Delhi District Courts website or the filing counter before you travel.
The BNSS introduced something the old Code did not have. For a cognizable offence falling within a defined punishment band, a police officer may — with the prior permission of an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police — conduct a preliminary enquiry of up to fourteen days to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists, before registering an FIR.
This is a real departure. Under the earlier law an enquiry could only address whether the information disclosed a cognizable offence at all. The new provision permits an enquiry into whether there is a prima facie case — a wider question.
Its relevance to cheating turns on the punishment band, and therefore on which sub-section your complaint discloses. Section 318(4) carries seven years and, on the plain words of the provision, sits outside the band; the lower grades sit inside it. So a complaint drafted to disclose Section 318(4) on its face is on materially stronger ground for immediate registration than one that does not.
You will find no mention of this provision on any of the widely-ranking pages about cheating. It is nonetheless the reason a great many complainants are told to "wait a few days".
There is a sequence, and it has to be followed in order — skipping a step is the commonest reason an application to the Magistrate is returned.
| Step | What to do | Provision |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Give the written complaint at the police station and get a receipt or a diary entry number | BNSS 173 |
| 2 | If registration is refused, send the substance of the information in writing, by post, to the Superintendent of Police — in Delhi, the DCP. Keep the despatch receipt and the tracking record | BNSS 173(4) |
| 3 | If still nothing, apply to the Magistrate on affidavit, showing that you exhausted step 2. The Magistrate may direct registration and investigation, after considering the submissions of the officer concerned | BNSS 175(3) |
| 4 | Alternatively, or in addition, file a private complaint before the Magistrate | BNSS 223 |
Delhi Police has a specialised Economic Offences Wing which handles the larger and more organised frauds — among the categories it lists are non-banking finance company frauds, fake placement and visa rackets, real estate and property frauds, banking and financial frauds, investment frauds, criminal breach of trust and multi-level marketing schemes.
People routinely ask what the money threshold is for the EOW to take a case. Delhi Police's own page for the Wing states that it takes up cases involving an amount of not less than three crore rupees. Treat that as the working line, and confirm it at the Wing, because published thresholds are revised from time to time.
Below that figure — and for a single transaction between two people, whatever the amount — the local police station is where the case belongs. Describing your matter by category as well as by amount helps: if it is a placement or visa racket, a real-estate fraud, a scheme with many victims or a non-banking finance company matter, say so, because those are the shapes the Wing is built for.
Cheating cases are won on documents, not on narrative. What matters:
Most cheating today is online, and online cheating is the one situation where the first hour genuinely decides whether you get the money back.
The scale of this is no longer marginal. Government figures placed before Parliament and published in early 2026 record over twenty-three lakh complaints handled through the financial cyber-fraud reporting system with more than eight thousand crore rupees saved from being lost — money that was stopped in transit precisely because people reported quickly. The National Crime Records Bureau's figures for 2024 record cybercrime cases up by about seventeen per cent and economic offences up by about 4.6 per cent.
This is the most useful thing on this page for anyone defrauded electronically, and it appears on almost no page about cheating. The Reserve Bank of India's framework on customer liability in unauthorised electronic banking transactions sets out when the loss is yours and when it is the bank's.
| Situation | Your liability |
|---|---|
| The loss is due to the bank's fraud, negligence or deficiency | Zero — whether or not you report it |
| Third-party breach, no fault of yours or the bank's, and you notify the bank within 3 working days of its communication to you | Zero |
| The same, but you notify within 4 to 7 working days | Capped — the transaction value or a fixed amount, whichever is lower. The cap depends on the type of account, and is lowest for basic savings accounts |
| You notify beyond 7 working days | Governed by the bank's own Board-approved policy |
| The loss is due to your own negligence — you shared credentials or an OTP | You bear the loss up to the point of reporting. Everything after reporting is the bank's |
On who has to prove what: "The burden of proving customer liability ... shall lie on the bank."
Three practical consequences follow. Report in writing and date it — the whole framework turns on when you notified. Report even if you were careless, because the clock stops everything after that moment. And do not accept a bank's assertion that it was your fault as the end of the matter — the framework puts the burden on the bank, and if it is not resolved you can take it to the RBI Ombudsman scheme.
People file cheating cases to recover money. It is worth being clear about which mechanism actually does that.
| Route | What it does | Realistic assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Attachment of the proceeds of crime — Section 107 BNSS | The police, with senior approval, apply to the court to attach property that is the proceeds of crime. A show-cause notice issues; an interim order can be made without notice where notice would defeat the object; on confirmation the District Magistrate distributes the proceeds among the affected persons, with any surplus forfeited to Government | New, and genuinely powerful. For the first time a cheating victim can get attachment and rateable distribution inside the ordinary criminal process. Ask about it early — attachment is only useful before the money moves |
| Compensation on conviction — Section 395 BNSS | The court may apply a fine towards compensating the victim, and may order compensation even where no fine is imposed. Amounts recovered are set off in any civil suit | Real, but it arrives at the end of a trial |
| Summary suit — Order XXXVII CPC | A civil suit on a written contract or a negotiable instrument where the defendant needs leave to defend | Often the fastest route to a decree where the debt is documented |
| Cheque dishonour — Section 138 NI Act | Its own offence, with a statutory notice and time limits, and interim compensation available during the case | Where a cheque bounced, usually the most practical route of all |
| Ordinary civil suit for recovery | A money decree | Slow, but it is the proceeding actually designed to make you whole |
Cheating is compoundable, which distinguishes it sharply from the matrimonial offences.
So where the money has been repaid, a route exists before the trial court itself. An application has to be made and the court has to permit it; a settlement signed at a lawyer's office does not by itself close a criminal case. Where the settlement covers several proceedings at once, or where the case is at a stage where compounding is awkward, a quashing petition under Section 528 BNSS is used instead — and cheating, being a dispute of a predominantly civil flavour, is squarely within the category the Supreme Court has said may be quashed on a settlement.
This page explains the law in general terms. It cannot tell you what to do about your own facts — only an advocate who has read your papers can do that. You can look through the advocates associated with Legal Space Services who practise in criminal and commercial matters, see their enrolment details and areas of practice, and send a consultation request. Searching and sending a request are free.
A cheating FIR arising from a business or property dispute is one of the most common criminal proceedings in Delhi, and a large proportion of them do not survive scrutiny.
It is the cheating section. Sub-section (1) defines cheating; sub-section (2) punishes simple cheating with up to three years; sub-section (3) covers cheating a person whose interest you were bound to protect, with up to five years; and sub-section (4) — the old Section 420 — covers cheating and dishonestly inducing the delivery of property, with up to seven years and a fine.
Only partly, and the difference matters. "420" is now Section 318(4) specifically, not Section 318 as a whole. Saying "he has a 318 case" tells you almost nothing — a 318(2) case is bailable, non-cognizable and carries three years, while a 318(4) case is cognizable, non-bailable and carries seven.
Three of them went up. Simple cheating went from one year to three. Cheating a person whose interest you were bound to protect went from three years to five. Cheating by personation, now Section 319(2), went from three years to five. Only Section 318(4) is unchanged at seven years.
Section 316 is criminal breach of trust. The two are mutually exclusive on the same facts. Cheating means the property was obtained by deception from the start — there was never a lawful entrustment. Breach of trust means the property was handed over lawfully and then misappropriated. The Supreme Court has held that both cannot co-exist on one set of facts.
1 July 2024. An offence committed before that date is prosecuted under the Indian Penal Code — so an FIR under Section 420 IPC being investigated today under BNSS procedure is normal and correct.
Not by itself, and this is the heart of the subject. The dishonest intention must have existed at the time the promise was made. If a person genuinely intended to perform and later failed — because the business collapsed, the market moved, the goods never arrived — that is a breach of contract, and the remedy is civil. Failure to perform, on its own, does not prove a dishonest intention at the beginning.
By showing something about the inception, not about the failure. That he had no capacity to perform when he promised. That he had already sold the same thing to someone else. That the documents he showed were forged. That the company did not exist. That he did the same thing to several people in the same period. Evidence of a pattern is often what converts a civil case into a criminal one.
It is common, and it is a contradiction. Cheating says there was never a lawful entrustment; breach of trust says the entrustment was lawful. Both cannot be true of the same transaction, and the Supreme Court has said so. That internal contradiction is itself an argument in a quashing petition.
Yes, and cheating FIRs arising from commercial disputes are among the most frequently quashed. The route is a petition to the High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS. The argument that succeeds is that the complaint, on its own terms, alleges a broken contract and never alleges a dishonest intention at the inception.
No. The Supreme Court has been explicit that the mere availability of a civil remedy is not by itself a ground to quash. The ground is the absence of the ingredient, not the presence of an alternative.
For Section 318(4) — where property was delivered — yes, it is cognizable and an FIR should be registered. Sections 318(2) and 318(3) are non-cognizable, so an FIR does not lie on those alone and the matter goes to the Magistrate instead. This is why the wording of your complaint matters so much: it should set out, on its face, that property was delivered on the strength of the deception.
The BNSS introduced a preliminary enquiry of up to fourteen days, with the prior permission of a senior officer, for cognizable offences in a defined punishment band. Whether it applies to your matter depends on which sub-section your complaint discloses. A complaint that clearly discloses Section 318(4) is on much stronger ground for immediate registration. Have your advocate check the band against the bare Act.
Two steps, in order. First, send a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police — in Delhi, the DCP — under Section 173(4) of the BNSS, by post, and keep proof of despatch. If nothing happens, apply to the Magistrate under Section 175(3), on affidavit, showing that you exhausted the first step. The Magistrate can direct registration and investigation.
Yes, by the person cheated, but with the permission of the court. Section 318(2) is compoundable by the person cheated without permission. Section 318(3) needs permission. A settlement signed privately does not by itself end a case — an application has to be made.
Section 318(2) carries three years and is therefore subject to the three-year limitation. Sections 318(3) and 318(4) carry five and seven years, so no limitation applies. Delay still gets argued as going to genuineness.
Call 1930 and report on cybercrime.gov.in immediately — before you do anything else, including going to the police station. The reporting system can freeze funds in transit, and the chance of stopping the money falls sharply with every hour. Then inform your bank in writing.
Under the Reserve Bank of India's framework, if the loss is due to the bank's own fraud, negligence or deficiency, your liability is zero whether or not you report. In a third-party breach where you were not at fault, your liability is zero if you notify the bank within three working days of its communication to you. Report within four to seven working days and your liability is capped at a limited amount depending on the type of account. Beyond that, the bank's own policy applies. Crucially, the burden of proving that you were liable is on the bank, not on you.
Not everything. Where the loss is due to the customer's own negligence — sharing credentials — the customer bears the loss up to the point of reporting, and the bank bears everything after. So reporting immediately still has real value even when you know you made the mistake.
It can, and the BNSS gave this real teeth. Section 107 allows the police, with senior approval, to apply to the court to attach property that is the proceeds of crime, and on confirmation the District Magistrate distributes it among the affected persons. Separately, a court may order compensation to the victim, and may do so even where no fine is imposed. But the criminal case is not a substitute for a civil recovery suit — the two run in parallel.
A dishonoured cheque has its own dedicated remedy under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which is faster and better suited to recovery, and which allows the court to order interim compensation. It may also amount to cheating where there was a dishonest intention from the start, but the cheque case is usually the more practical route.
Browse all 21 law pages — search by section number, old or new →
Tell us in one line what happened and when. We will tell you which practice area it falls under and point you to an advocate who works in it. The first conversation costs nothing.