“I’ll file a 420 case against him” is one of the most familiar threats in Indian everyday life shorthand for cheating and fraud, so common that “420” became slang for a con artist.
That number is now history. Since 1 July 2024, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) replaced the IPC, and cheating now lives under Section 318 BNS, with the old 420 offence specifically renumbered as Section 318(4). The legal test built on decades of Supreme Court precedent hasn’t materially changed. Only the number has.
This guide covers the definition, the four grades of cheating, bail and cognizability, the IPC-to-BNS mapping, and the case law still deciding these matters in 2026.
From IPC 420 to BNS 318: What Changed on 1 July 2024?
Why the BNS Replaced the IPC
The IPC governed Indian criminal law for over 160 years. Parliament replaced it with the BNS alongside two companion laws the BNSS (replacing the CrPC) and the BSA (replacing the Evidence Act) aiming to modernise colonial-era language and consolidate scattered provisions. All three took effect on 1 July 2024. For cheating, lawmakers kept the tested definition intact while reorganising it into a cleaner, graded structure and raising a few punishment ceilings.
Where Cheating Moved: Sections 318 and 319
The IPC spread cheating across five sections (415–419) plus Section 420. The BNS consolidates this into two sections:
- Section 318 general cheating, in four graded sub-sections
- Section 319 cheating by personation
The Headline Answer: 420 Is Now Section 318(4)
The single most important fact in this entire guide: Section 420 IPC is now Section 318(4) BNS. Every new FIR, chargesheet, and judgment involving property-related cheating will cite Section 318(4), not Section 420. The punishment, cognizability, and non-bailable status all carry over unchanged.
Related Post: Quash Petition Under Section 482 CrPC: A Complete Legal Guide
What Is Cheating Under Section 318(1) BNS?
The Statutory Definition
Section 318(1) defines cheating almost identically to the old Section 415 IPC: a person deceives someone and, through that deception, induces the victim to hand over property or to act (or not act) in a way they otherwise wouldn’t causing harm as a result.
The Ingredients of Cheating
- The accused deceived the complainant.
- That deception dishonestly or fraudulently induced them.
- The complainant delivered property, or did/omitted something because of it.
- The act caused, or was likely to cause, damage or harm.
“Dishonestly” and “Fraudulently”: The Mental Element
Both terms point to intent, not carelessness. “Dishonestly” means acting to cause wrongful gain or loss; “fraudulently” means acting with intent to deceive. A failed venture or genuine inability to repay a loan doesn’t meet this bar on its own.
Damage or Harm in Body, Mind, Reputation or Property
Cheating isn’t limited to money it also covers deception that damages reputation, mental wellbeing, or physical safety, even without any cash or goods changing hands.
The Four Grades of Cheating: Sections 318(2), 318(3) and 318(4)
Section 318(2): Simple Cheating, Up to Three Years
The residual category cheating without delivery of property. Maximum sentence: three years, up from one year under the old Section 417.
Section 318(3): Cheating by a Person Bound to Protect Your Interest
Covers cheating by someone in a position of trust an agent, adviser, or fiduciary. Punishment extends to five years, up from three years under Section 418.
Section 318(4): The Old Section 420, Up to Seven Years
The grade everyone means by “420.” It applies when cheating induces someone to hand over property or to create, alter, or destroy a valuable security. Punishment: up to seven years plus fine, unchanged from the old law.
What Is a “Valuable Security”?
Any document that creates, transfers, or extinguishes a legal right cheques, promissory notes, sale deeds, share certificates. Tricking someone into signing one over can trigger Section 318(4) even without cash changing hands.
Comparison: Sections 318(2), 318(3) and 318(4)
| Section | Conduct | Max Punishment | Old IPC Section |
| 318(2) | Simple cheating, no property delivered | 3 years + fine | 417 (was 1 year) |
| 318(3) | Cheating a person you were bound to protect | 5 years + fine | 418 (was 3 years) |
| 318(4) | Cheating that induces delivery of property/valuable security | 7 years + fine | 420 (unchanged) |
Section 319 BNS: Cheating by Personation and Online Fraud
The Definition of Cheating by Personation
Section 319(1) covers cheating by pretending to be someone else real or fictional mirroring the old Section 416 IPC.
Punishment: Up to Five Years
Section 319(2) raises the maximum to five years, up from three under the old Section 419 reflecting a tougher stance on identity-based fraud.
Digital Personation: OTP, UPI and Matrimonial Fraud
Fake bank-officer calls seeking an OTP, bogus matrimonial profiles, and impersonation-based UPI scams typically fall here, often charged alongside Section 318(4) and the IT Act, 2000.
Is a 420 or Section 318(4) BNS Case Bailable? Cognizability, Bail and Trial
Cognizable or Non-Cognizable
Section 318(4) and Section 319 are cognizable police can register an FIR and investigate without prior court permission. Sections 318(2) and 318(3) are non-cognizable.
Bailable or Non-Bailable
Only Section 318(4) is non-bailable. The rest 318(2), 318(3), and 319 are bailable. “Non-bailable” doesn’t mean bail is refused; it means the decision rests with the court’s discretion, not an automatic right.
Which Court Tries a 318(4) Case
A Magistrate of the first class. The lesser grades go before any Magistrate.
Arrest, Anticipatory Bail and Regular Bail
Since Section 318(4) allows arrest without a warrant, anticipatory bail (under Section 482 of the BNSS) is often the first line of defence for anyone fearing arrest.
Bail and Cognizability at a Glance
| Section | Cognizable | Bailable | Compoundable |
| 318(2) | No | Yes | Without court permission |
| 318(3) | No | Yes | With court permission |
| 318(4) | Yes | No | With court permission |
| 319(2) | Yes | Yes | With court permission |
IPC to BNS Mapping for Cheating: Sections 415 to 420
The One-to-One Map
| IPC Section | BNS Section | Change |
| 415 (definition) | 318(1) | Renumbered only |
| 416 (personation, definition) | 319(1) | Renumbered only |
| 417 (simple cheating) | 318(2) | 1 yr → 3 yrs |
| 418 (breach of protected interest) | 318(3) | 3 yrs → 5 yrs |
| 419 (personation punishment) | 319(2) | 3 yrs → 5 yrs |
| 420 (property delivery) | 318(4) | 7 yrs → 7 yrs |
What Actually Changed: The Punishments Went Up
Three of the six cheating provisions now carry heavier maximum sentences than under the IPC. Only the headline 420 grade stayed exactly where it was.
What Stayed the Same
The core definition, mental-element requirements, and property-versus-harm structure remain untouched which is why old Supreme Court rulings still apply directly.
Cheating vs Breach of Contract: The Dishonest-Intent Test
The Doctrine: Intention at the Inception
The defining rule, from Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar (2000), is simple: dishonest intent must exist at the time the promise was made. A promise made honestly that later falls through is a civil matter, not a crime.
Loan Defaults, Bounced Cheques and Failed Deals
A missed EMI or a stalled deal, standing alone, is not cheating. Courts routinely quash FIRs that turn out to be disguised recovery claims.
When a Civil Dispute Does Cross Into Cheating
The line is crossed when the accused never intended to perform from day one, or used forged documents to extract money or property.
Cheating vs Criminal Breach of Trust and Extortion
Cheating (318) vs Criminal Breach of Trust (316)
Breach of trust involves property lawfully entrusted and later misused; cheating involves property obtained through deception from the outset.
Cheating (318) vs Extortion (308)
Extortion is driven by fear; cheating is driven by deception. The victim’s state of mind at the moment of parting with property decides which applies.
Quick Comparison
| Offence | Section | How Property Changes Hands |
| Cheating | 318 | Through deception |
| Criminal breach of trust | 316 | Lawful entrustment, later misused |
| Extortion | 308 | Through fear/threat |
Can a 420 or Section 318(4) BNS Case Be Quashed or Compounded?
Compounding Under BNSS Section 359
Section 318(2) can be compounded directly by the complainant. Section 318(4) needs the court’s permission before a settlement can close the case.
Quashing Under BNSS Section 528
The High Court can quash a cheating FIR under Section 528 (successor to Section 482 CrPC) where it’s essentially a civil dispute dressed up as a crime.
Does Returning the Money End the Case?
Not automatically. Repayment enables a settlement, but a formal court order through compounding or quashing is what actually closes the case.
Landmark Supreme Court Cases on Cheating Still Good Law Under the BNS
The Inception-of-Intent Line
Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma, Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal (2022), and Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab (2023) all reinforce that dishonest intent must exist from the start.
Ingredients and Reach
Mahadeo Prasad v. State of West Bengal (1954) held that intention not to pay, present at the moment of taking delivery, is cheating. Iridium India Telecom v. Motorola Inc (2011) confirmed even a company can be prosecuted.
The 2025 Benchmarks Under the New Code
Rulings like Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025) and Arshad Neyaz Khan v. State of Jharkhand (2025) apply the same doctrine to fresh Section 318 cases, confirming continuity with the old law.
Recent Developments and What to Expect, 2024 to 2027
The Pushback on Civil-Colour 420 FIRs
Courts continue quashing FIRs that are really recovery disputes dressed as crimes, and this scrutiny is likely to intensify.
The Digital Cheating Surge
UPI fraud, OTP scams, and fake-profile schemes are pushing Section 319 and Section 318(4) into closer overlap with the IT Act, 2000.
BNS-Era Precedent Forming
As more judgments cite Section 318(4) directly, the “420” label will fade from legal use even as it survives in everyday speech.
Common Mistakes and Practical Pitfalls
- Treating every unpaid debt or bounced cheque as automatic grounds for a 318(4) FIR
- Charging Section 318(4) when no property was actually delivered
- Assuming “non-bailable” means bail is impossible
- Believing a private settlement alone closes a Section 318(4) case without court approval
FAQ’s
Which section replaced IPC 420 in the BNS?
Section 420 IPC is now Section 318(4) of the BNS, effective 1 July 2024, carrying the same seven-year maximum punishment.
Is Section 318(4) bailable?
No, it’s non-bailable, but that only means bail is discretionary courts grant it regularly in genuine commercial disputes.
Can a loan default alone be treated as a 420 case?
No. Without proof of dishonest intent at the outset, a loan default is a civil matter, not cheating.
Is Section 318(4) compoundable?
Yes, but only with the permission of the court under Section 359 of the BNSS.
What is the punishment for cheating by personation under Section 319?
Up to five years imprisonment, a fine, or both raised from three years under the old IPC.
Conclusion
The move from Section 420 IPC to Section 318(4) BNS looks dramatic on paper, but the substance of India’s cheating law hasn’t really changed. The definition, the ingredients, and most importantly the “dishonest intent at inception” test that separates a crime from a broken business promise all carry forward from decades of Supreme Court precedent. What has changed is the structure: cheating is now organised into a clear, graded scheme across Sections 318 and 319, with three of its four grades now carrying heavier maximum sentences than before.
For anyone facing a cheating complaint, or considering filing one, the practical takeaways remain the same. Cognizability and bail depend on which grade applies, with Section 318(4) the true successor to 420 remaining the only non-bailable variant. Settlement doesn’t close a case automatically; a court order does. And the strongest defence in a weak complaint is still showing that no dishonest intent existed at the very start. As BNS-era judgments accumulate, “318(4)” will settle into legal vocabulary the way “420” once did even if the street-level shorthand takes a little longer to catch up.
