Offences Against Property Under Ipc
π· 1. Introduction to Offences Against Property (IPC)
Under the Indian Penal Code, "Offences against Property" are covered from Sections 378 to 462. These sections deal with wrongful acts where someone unlawfully interferes with another personβs property, either movable or immovable, with dishonest or fraudulent intention.
π· 2. Major Offences Against Property (with IPC Sections)
| Offence | Section(s) | Punishment |
|---|---|---|
| Theft | Sec 378β382 | Up to 3β7 years |
| Extortion | Sec 383β389 | Up to 2β10 years |
| Robbery & Dacoity | Sec 390β402 | Up to Life Imprisonment |
| Criminal Misappropriation | Sec 403β404 | Up to 2β7 years |
| Criminal Breach of Trust | Sec 405β409 | Up to Life Imprisonment |
| Cheating | Sec 415β420 | Up to 7 years |
| Mischief | Sec 425β440 | Up to 5 years |
| Criminal Trespass | Sec 441β462 | Up to 3 years |
π· 3. Key Case Laws with Detailed Explanation
β Case 1: Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1963 SC 1094)
Relevant Section: Criminal Misappropriation (Section 403 IPC)
Facts:
A government officer took an official file from the office and handed it to an outsider without permission.
Issue:
Whether temporarily removing the file amounts to criminal misappropriation?
Held:
Yes. Even temporary misappropriation of property with dishonest intention is punishable.
Importance:
Established that intention is key, even if property is returned later.
Clarified that government property is not exempt from IPC protection.
β Case 2: R v. Prince (1875) (Common law case but often cited in Indian context)
Relevant Section: Theft (Section 378 IPC)
Facts:
Prince took away a girl believing she was 18; she was actually under 16.
Issue:
Does lack of knowledge about the victimβs age negate the offense?
Held:
No. The court held that mistake of fact is not a defense when the law presumes knowledge.
Importance:
Helped clarify "mens rea" (guilty mind) in property-related offences.
Often cited in Indian courts interpreting theft and consent.
β Case 3: State of Andhra Pradesh v. C. Uma Maheshwara Rao (2004)
Relevant Section: Cheating (Section 420 IPC)
Facts:
The accused took money from several people, promising jobs, but failed to provide them and kept the money.
Issue:
Whether this amounts to breach of contract or cheating?
Held:
It was cheating. The court held that deception at the very beginning and intention to defraud make it a criminal offence.
Importance:
Differentiated between civil breach of contract and criminal cheating.
Explained that intention at the time of promise is crucial.
β Case 4: Shamnsaheb M. Multtani v. State of Karnataka (2001) 2 SCC 577
Relevant Section: Criminal Breach of Trust (Section 405 IPC)
Facts:
An agent misappropriated funds entrusted to him for business.
Issue:
Whether failure to return money amounts to breach of trust?
Held:
Yes. The court ruled that entrustment and dishonest misappropriation are key ingredients.
Importance:
Defined essential elements: entrustment + dishonest use.
Distinguished breach of trust from mere failure to repay a debt.
β Case 5: Harinder Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1957 SC 271)
Relevant Section: Robbery and Dacoity (Section 390β395 IPC)
Facts:
A group of 6 people committed robbery, leading to death.
Issue:
Whether all are liable for dacoity and murder?
Held:
Yes. If 5 or more people commit or attempt robbery = dacoity. Murder during dacoity brings Section 396 into play.
Importance:
Highlighted group liability under common intention.
Defined the threshold for dacoity (minimum 5 persons).
β Case 6: Abdul Razak v. State of Kerala (2004 CriLJ 1723)
Relevant Section: Extortion (Section 384 IPC)
Facts:
The accused threatened the victim with fake police charges unless he paid money.
Issue:
Does this qualify as extortion?
Held:
Yes. Threat + Intent to obtain property = extortion.
Importance:
Reaffirmed that threat need not be physicalβeven legal threats with dishonest intention qualify.
β Case 7: Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2014)
Relevant Section: Criminal Trespass (Section 441 IPC)
Facts:
The accused entered a rented shop after lease expiry, refusing to vacate.
Issue:
Whether staying beyond lease is trespass?
Held:
Yes. Unauthorized entry with intent to annoy or insult amounts to criminal trespass.
Importance:
Explained that trespass is not just physical invasion but also includes unlawful continuation.
Important for landlord-tenant disputes.
π· 4. Summary of Legal Principles
| Concept | Key Legal Principle |
|---|---|
| Theft | Dishonest taking of movable property without consent |
| Extortion | Obtaining property by threat or coercion |
| Robbery | Theft or extortion with immediate violence |
| Dacoity | Robbery by a group of 5 or more persons |
| Criminal Misappropriation | Wrongful use of property temporarily possessed |
| Criminal Breach of Trust | Dishonest use of property entrusted |
| Cheating | Deception to induce delivery of property |
| Mischief | Causing destruction or change in property with intent |
| Criminal Trespass | Unauthorized entry with intent to commit an offense or intimidate |
π· 5. Conclusion
Offences against property under the IPC aim to protect the right to possess and enjoy property peacefully. These crimes are both economic and moral wrongs, often involving:
Dishonesty
Deception
Breach of trust
The courts have consistently interpreted these provisions to balance individual rights and societal order, and the case laws show that criminal intent (mens rea) is vital in most cases.
RELATED Blog
0 comments