Section 468, 420, 506 of ipc
sadiq pasha
(Querist) 22 August 2011
This query is : Resolved
i want the deatels of the ipc sections 420, 468, 506. in which conditions those sections was applicable. and punishments. whats the role of police officers in the above sections investgations matter.
n.k.sarin
(Expert) 23 August 2011
all the above section belongs to the serious offence. and the investigating officer ,who is investigating the case has right for inquerry and has power to arrest.
Advocate Rajkumarlaxman
(Expert) 23 August 2011
Section 468. Forgery for purpose of cheating
Whoever commits forgery, intending that the 1[document or Electronic Record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE
Punishment—Imprisonment for 7 years and fine—Cognizable—Non-bailable—-Triable by Magistrate of the first class—Non-compoundÂable.
Section 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property
Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived 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.
CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE
Punishment—Imprisonment for 7 years and fine—Cognizable—Non-bailÂable—Triable by Magistrate of the first class—Compoundable by the person cheated with the permission of the court.
Comments
Ingredients
(i) Even if the allegation made in the complaint are accepted to be true and correct, the appellants cannot be said to have committed any offence of cheating. Since the appellants were not in picture at all the time when the complainant alleges to have spent money in improving the bottling plant, neither any guilty intention can be attributed to them nor there can possibly be any intention on their part to deceive complainant; Ajay Mitra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2003 SC 1069.
(ii) The offence of cheating is established when the accused thereby induced that person to deliver any property or to do or to omit to do something which he would otherwise not have done or omitted; Mahadeo Prasad v. State of Bengal, AIR 1954 SC 724.
Section 506. Punishment for criminal intimidation
Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonÂment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;
If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.—And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonÂment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE
Para I
Punishment—Imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or both—Non-cognizable-Bailable—Triable by any Magistrate—Compoundable by the person intimidated.
Para II
Punishment—Imprisonment for 7 years, or fine, or both—Non-cognizable—Bailable—Triable by Magistrate of the first class—Non-compoundable.
State Amendment
Uttar Pradesh
Imprisonment of 7 years, or fine or both—Cognizable—Non-bailable—Triable by Magistrate of the first class—Non-compoundable.
Vide Notification No. 777/VIII 9-4(2)—87, dated 31st July, 1989, published in U.P. Gazette, Extra., Pt. A, Sec. (kha), dated 2nd August, 1989.
comments
Threat to reputation
Where criminal intimidation was committed by threatening X and his daughter with injury to their reputation by having the indecent photographs published; the intent mentioned was to cause alarm to X and his daughter, hence the appellant was clearly guilty of the criminal intimidation and it was held that the conviction of the appellant under section 506 is correct; Romesh Chandra v. State, AIR 1960 SC 154.
K.S.Srinivas
(Expert) 23 August 2011
Advocate Rajkumarlaxmanan extracted the relevant sections and clearly explained to the queriest.
Shastri J.K.
(Expert) 23 August 2011
You go immediate to perchage the book of ipc
girish shringi
(Expert) 27 August 2011
Thanks.
Mr.Rajkumsrlaxman to provide detailed sections for the benefit of viewers.
