INTRODUCTION
MISCHEIF
“Anyone who causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof, as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it adversely, commits “mischief,” whether with the intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person.” Anybody who destroys property or makes a change to it that lessens its value or utility or adversely affects it, with the intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, is guilty of “mischief.” A destroys his belongings knowing that they would soon be used to fulfill a debt owed by him to Z. He does this with the goal of stopping Z from receiving payment for the obligation and inflicting harm on him as a result. A has caused trouble. Damage or wrongful loss may occur to any public property, such as buses, trains, etc., as well as to any individual or private property. A man may engage in mischief on his own property in order to wrongfully cause someone else’s loss, for example, a man may set his house on fire in order to make an insurance claim. Simply put, this argument argues that mischief does not include causing harm to someone else’s property and instead might take place when one person damages their own property in a way that negatively impacts others.
CHEATING
The term “cheater” refers to a person who, by deceiving another, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to. Cheating is a crime committed when someone is tricked into giving up something, letting the offender keep the property, or acting or refraining from acting in a way they wouldn’t have otherwise. The individual who was duped must suffer harm or damage to their health, property, etc., as a result of their actions. The terms “fraudulently” and “dishonestly” have been used to describe how cheating is done. According to Section 24 of the IPC, the phrase “dishonestly” means that the act of cheating must be done with the aim to get unfair advantage or cause unfair loss. A dishonestly induces Z to advance money on the belief of such delivery by purposefully leading Z to believe that A intends to provide to Z a specific quantity of indigo plant when A does not intend to do so. A defrauds; however, if A intended to provide the indigo plant when he obtained the money but later broke his promise and failed to do so, he did not defraud and is merely subject to a civil action for breach of contract.
CASE LAWS RELATED MISCHEIF
In the case of Indian Oil Company v. NEPC India Ltd. and Ors., the court reached a decision. That property possession or ownership is not a deciding factor in how section 425 of the IPC is applied. As a result, if all the other requirements are satisfied, mischief can be considered to have been committed even if the accused is the property’s owner.
In the case of Krishna Gopal Singh and Others v. the State of U.P., it was determined that if the accused committed an act without any knowledge or intent that it is likely to result in wrongful loss or damage to any person or the general public, the act will not be considered mischief because the element of “Mens rea” is absent. Similar to the last example, mischief will not be defined as an action carried out against one’s will or under pressure.
CASE LAWS RELATED CHEATING
A patient who was admitted to the hospital was checked by a doctor, who found that the patient was in a scenario in which he would not survive, in the case of K R Kumaran vs. State of Kerala. In order to issue a life insurance policy for the person who was about to pass away, the doctor worked with the other defendants, and in order to do so, he certified that the individual was fit and healthy. Once the patient passed away, the accused did this in order to obtain payment from the insurance provider. The defendant was found guilty by the court of deceiving and misleading the insurance provider in order to obtain benefits. The accused was found guilty of cheating under the IPC.
In the case Swami Dhirendra Brahmachari v. Shailendar Bhushan[3], the court determined that the accused, Swami Brahmachari, made false claims regarding the government of India’s recognition of the yoga program he offered through the Vishwayatan Yogashram in order to trick unsuspecting students into paying Rs 1,000 as a security deposit. The accusation against him was prima facie deemed to be made out in the complaint and facts gathered by the investigating agencies, therefore the Delhi High Court declined to dismiss the criminal case of cheating that was still pending against him.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MISCHEIF AND CHEATING
Mischief is the act of destroying property in order to wrongfully cause loss to another individual or to the general public. The act of misleading someone in order to obtain unfair advantage or for the other person to suffer unfair loss is known as cheating. Cheating has an impact on specific people and things. Both public and private properties are impacted by Mischief. The provisions relating to Mischief are covered in Sections 425 to 440. The provisions relating to Cheating are covered in Sections 415 to 420. The wrongdoer wants to obtain the property by deception and use it for their own benefit. The defendant in this case aims to harm or destroy the property. Classification of the offense: Any magistrate may try the case and it is non-cognizable, bailable, compoundable, and punishable by fine. The crime is not cognizable, bailable, or subject to a magistrate’s discretion. It is compoundable by the individual who was defrauded with the court’s approval. Punishment Section 426 states that mischief carries a maximum sentence of 3 months in prison and/or a fine. Cheating is punishable by up to a year in prison and/or a fine under Section 417. An example would be if A set fire to one of Z’s precious possessions with the intention of causing Z harm. A has caused mischief.
As an example, A might trick Z into thinking that A has met his obligation under a contract with Z when in fact A has not, in order to trick Z into parting with money. A has been caught cheating. What the Criminal wants to achieve When someone does mischief, their goal is to deprive the owner(s) of the property of justifiable loss or harm. The goal of cheating is to enjoy the property and create false benefits by depriving someone of something they should have. Kind of Damage or Injury Property loss is the cause of the harm. The harm includes harm to the following: Mind, reputation ,Real estate.
CONCLUSION
Cheating is a crime according to the Indian Criminal Code. Via deceit, it is done to benefit or get anything from another individual. The person who deceives another is well aware that by doing so, they are placing that person in a bad predicament. Section 420 of the IPC allows for the criminalization of cheating. The IPC’s Mischief Law was created to defend against property destruction that causes unfair loss or harm to the general public or an individual. It is a legal principle known as sic utretuo lead as, which literally translates to “use your own property, but not in a way that harms your neighbor’s or other’s.”
REFRENCE
Section 425’s Illustration (c).
2006 (6) SCC 736.
(1994) Cr LJ 2238 (Mad).
https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/
https://unlocking-the-future.com/
Aishwarya Says:
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems to secondinnings.hr@gmail.com
Join our Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening