IPC 420 in the new BNS 2023

If you have been named in an FIR or notice under this section, the section number alone does not decide the outcome — the facts, the evidence and the procedure do. Many cases turn on procedural lapses, bail strategy and the exact ingredients of the offence.

This is the section most people mean when they talk about a cheating case, and it now sits at BNS 318(4). The defining feature is that the victim handed the property over. Consent was present, but it was obtained by deception.

What the section requires

For the offence to be made out, these ingredients have to be established:

• the accused deceived a person
• by that deception the person was dishonestly induced to deliver property, or to consent to someone retaining property
• the accused had dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time the inducement was made

What changed from the IPC

The offence carried over with its structure intact. Cheating is defined at BNS 318, and the aggravated form that used to be IPC 420, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, is now BNS 318(4). The punishment remains up to seven years along with a fine.

How this section is distinguished from related offences

The recurring difficulty is separating a criminal case from a civil dispute. A contract that was not performed is a breach of contract, not cheating. What converts non-performance into an offence is dishonest intention at the moment of the promise, meaning the accused never intended to keep it. Courts look for evidence about the accused's position and conduct at the time of the inducement rather than afterwards, because a genuine business failure and a fraudulent scheme can look identical once the money is gone. This is also what separates cheating from criminal breach of trust under BNS 316, where the property was handed over lawfully and only later misappropriated.

How the case proceeds

Documentary evidence tends to dominate: agreements, payment records, correspondence and bank statements establishing what was represented and when. The sequence of events matters, because the case usually turns on what the accused knew or intended at the time of the representation.

Evidence that usually decides these cases

These cases are built on documents. Agreements, invoices, bank statements, cheque records, emails and messages establish what was represented, when, and what followed. The sequence matters more than the volume, because the question is what the accused knew and intended at the moment of the inducement. Evidence about the accused's financial position at that time, and about whether any steps towards performance were ever taken, is what separates a failed venture from a scheme that was never going to be honoured.

How courts approach sentencing

The maximum is seven years along with a fine, which places the offence well above ordinary cheating under BNS 318(2). Courts weigh the amount involved, the number of persons affected, whether the conduct was organised or repeated, and whether any restitution has been made. Cases involving many victims or a systematic pattern attract sentences at the higher end.

Defences that commonly apply

The most effective answer is usually that the dispute is contractual rather than criminal, supported by evidence of a genuine intention to perform that was frustrated by circumstances. Absence of dishonest intention at the time of the promise defeats the charge entirely, because that intention is the ingredient that converts breach into cheating. Where money was repaid, or partly repaid, that conduct is relevant to intention as well as to sentencing.

How a case under this section typically progresses

These cases often start with a complaint to the police that is met by a contention that the dispute is civil. Where an FIR is registered, the investigation is document-heavy and can be lengthy, since it involves obtaining bank records and correspondence. Proceedings to quash the FIR on the ground that the matter is contractual are common at an early stage. If the case proceeds, it is tried by a magistrate or a Sessions Court depending on the punishment sought, and the trial turns on documents rather than eyewitnesses.

Documents worth gathering early

Assemble the complete documentary trail: the agreement or understanding, invoices, receipts, bank and UPI statements, cheque records, and the full email and messaging history in an unedited form. Partial extracts are treated with suspicion, so preserve the entire exchange including messages that are unhelpful. Records showing your financial position and business activity at the time of the transaction are directly relevant to whether there was dishonest intention at the outset. Evidence of any repayment, part performance or genuine attempt to perform should be collected and dated.

Note on bail and cognizability. Whether an offence is cognizable, and whether it is bailable, is set by the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, not by the BNS section itself. Because that classification decides whether police can arrest without a warrant and how bail is approached, check it for your specific section with an advocate rather than relying on a general summary.

If you have been named under this section

Where the underlying matter is genuinely commercial, that characterisation should be established early, because the criminal court is not the forum for a contractual dispute. Preserving the paper trail is important for the same reason: correspondence showing an intention to perform, or a genuine reason for non-performance, goes directly to the dishonest intention the section requires.

Common misunderstandings

"Every unpaid debt is a 420 case."
Failure to repay is ordinarily a civil matter. It becomes cheating only if there was dishonest intention at the time the promise was made.

"420 no longer exists."
The number changed, not the offence. It is BNS 318(4) for offences committed on or after 1 July 2024, and remains IPC 420 for earlier ones.

"Cheating and criminal breach of trust are the same."
In cheating the property is obtained by deception at the outset. In criminal breach of trust, under BNS 316, the property was entrusted lawfully and misappropriated later.

Related BNS sections

• BNS 318 — Cheating
• BNS 316 — Criminal breach of trust (IPC 405/406)
• BNS 336 — Forgery (IPC 463/465)
• BNS 338 — Forgery of valuable security (IPC 467)

Which code applies to your case

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 replaced the Indian Penal Code 1860 with effect from 1 July 2024, and the change is not retrospective. The date the offence is alleged to have been committed decides which code governs it. An offence alleged to have occurred on or after 1 July 2024 proceeds under the BNS. An offence alleged to have occurred before that date continues to be investigated, tried, appealed and punished under the IPC, even where the FIR was registered later. Cases from the transition period frequently cite both numbering systems, which is why the old section number remains worth knowing.

Named under this section? Ask the free AI Advocate →

⚖️ See the full IPC → BNS converter  ·  📘 New criminal-law guide

General information for understanding the IPC→BNS change, not legal advice. The BNS restructured many offences — confirm the exact section, sub-section and punishment with a licensed advocate.