Vivekanand Law Firm

White-Collar and Economic Offences

Cheating Under Section 318 BNS: Ingredients, Punishment and Defences

What must be proved in a cheating case under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, how it differs from a broken promise, and the remedies available.

By Advocate VivekanandWhite-Collar and Economic Offences23 October 20266 min read

From Section 420 IPC to Section 318 BNS

Since 1 July 2024, cheating is defined and punished in Section 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Section 318(1) defines cheating; 318(2) punishes it with up to three years; 318(3) covers cheating a person whose interest the accused was bound to protect, with up to five years; and 318(4), which corresponds to the old Section 420 IPC, punishes cheating that dishonestly induces delivery of property or the making or alteration of a valuable security, with up to seven years and fine. Acts committed before 1 July 2024 are still tried under the IPC.

What the prosecution must prove

  • Deception of a person, by a false representation or dishonest concealment
  • Fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person as a result
  • That the person delivered property, consented to its retention, or did or omitted something they would not otherwise have done
  • That this caused, or was likely to cause, harm to body, mind, reputation or property

Intention at the start

The decisive question is usually intention. In Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar (2000), the Supreme Court held that the fraudulent or dishonest intention must exist when the promise or representation was made. A later failure to keep a promise does not, by itself, amount to cheating. The same reasoning was applied in Vesa Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2015).

Cheating and breach of trust together

FIRs often allege both cheating (Section 318) and criminal breach of trust (Section 316) on the same facts. In Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024), the Supreme Court explained that the two are distinct: cheating requires deception at the outset, while breach of trust requires lawful entrustment followed by dishonest misappropriation.

Bail and compounding

Cheating under Section 318(4) is cognizable and non-bailable. Cheating is compoundable: simple cheating by the person cheated, and Section 318(4) with the permission of the court, so a genuine settlement can end the case.

Defences and remedies

  • Documents showing a genuine transaction and a later dispute
  • Part performance, payments made and correspondence showing good faith
  • A petition under Section 528 BNSS to quash proceedings that disclose only a civil dispute
  • Discharge at the stage of charge if the material does not disclose the ingredients

Frequently asked questions

Is a cheque bounce the same as cheating?

No. Dishonour of a cheque is dealt with under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Cheating requires deception and dishonest intention at the start of the transaction.

About the author

Advocate Vivekanand

Founder & Principal Advocate, Vivekanand Law Firm · MA (English), MBA, LL.B., Author. Full profile

This article is general legal information, not legal advice. It does not create an advocate–client relationship. Legal provisions referred to should be verified for your specific situation and the date of the events concerned.

Related practice

White-Collar Crime and Economic Offences

Related insights

Criminal Breach of Trust Under Section 316 BNS: Partners, Employees and AgentsWhen a Civil Dispute Is Given a Criminal Colour: Quashing Before the Patna High CourtCheque Bounce Cases Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act