Section Title Cases and facts

1. 383 Extortion  Habib Khan v. State – Injury need not to be physical

even a terror of criminal charge whether true or false
amounts to fear of injury.
2. 390 Robbery  Harish Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh: A snatched a
watch. B stopped the victim so that A can carry away
the watch. Both A and B have committed robbery.
 Madhu v. State of Kerela(2012)
3. 391 Dacoity(Gang Robbery)  Om Prakash v. State(1956): Necessary that all persons
must have the common intention of committing a
robbery.
 Lachaman Ram v. State of Orrisa 1985: Accused
persons committed dacoity one after the another and
looted away property.
4. 403 Dishonest Misappropriation  Rama Krishna, 1888: Offence of misappropriation
of property consist conversion either permanently or temporarily
of movable property which is already in the possession
of the offender.
 Mahabir Prasad Garodia v. State of Assam:
Dishonestly converted or misappropriated to own use.
5. 405 Criminal Breach of trust  Ramaswami Nadar v. State of Madras: State of
Madras 1958: Entrustment is must. No entrustment,
no offence.
 Common cause, A registered society v. Union of India:
Fine of Rs. 50 lakhs imposed on Captain Satish Sharma,
the petroleum minister in PVN Rao Govt. For arbitrary
allotment of petrol pumps, as trustee of public
property.

6. 410 Stolen Property  Chandmal v. State of Rajasthan: Stolen Property

Mohan Lal v. State of Maharashtra: Full knowledge or reason
to believe property obtained by the condition of the stolen
property specified in this section.
7. 411 Dishonestly receiving Stolen  Kamal Singh Uttam Singh v. State of Maharashtra:
Property Explanation by accused raise serious doubts on the
sustainability of this charge, entitled to an acquittal.
8. 415 Cheating  Sadanand Doss(1865): Posed himself as a police officer
and cheated villagers, obtained money. Liable under
this.
 NM Chakrabarty v. State of West Bengal: Intentionally
inducing person deceived.
9. 420 Cheating and dishonestly  Shyam Sundar Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh:
inducing delivery of Intention of accused was dishonest at the time of
property making the promise.
 Sushil Kumar Dutta v. State of West Bengal: Became
IAS projecting himself SC, convicted under this because
he was not SC.
10. 425 Mischief  Sippatar Singh v. Krishna: Loss must be due to any act
of the accused.
  Murugappa v. Morungamuthu: Knowledge or intent to
cause wrongful loss or damage is a must.
11. 441 Criminal Trespass  Kanwal Sood v. Nawal Kishore: Mere occupation even
if illegal, without intention to commit offence is not
criminal trespass
 State of Calcutta v. Abdul Sukar: Actual personal entry
must. Constructive entry by a servant, not an entry
within under this section.
12. 442 House-trespass  King Emperor v. Balkrishna Narhar 1924: An entry to
break lock without legal process to claim possession if
the person has got a decree from the civil court is not
house trespass under this section, as it was bona fide
and had no mens rea.
13. 443 Lurking House trespass  Budha v. Emperor,(1916), Bijay Kumar Mohapatro:
Offender must take some effective steps to conceal his
presence.
14. 444 Lurking house-trespass by  Prem Bahadur Rai v. State 1978: No active steps to
night conceal presence, no charge under 443 or 444.

15. 445 House Breaking  Ghulam v. Crown: 6 ways of House breaking.


Pullabhotla Chinniah, 1917; Rashid,1977: Breaking
open cattle shed in which agricultural implements are
kept amounts to house-breaking.
16. 446 House-breaking by night 
17. 463 Forgery  Shiv Bahadur Singh: Signing on the name of deceased
to encash National Savings Certificates securities of the
deceased is forgery.

18. 493 Cohabitation caused by a Bodhisattva Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty 1996:

man deceitfully inducing a This may also be covered under 375 clause 4, rape by
belief of lawful marriage consent obtained by inducing her to believe that she is
lawfully married to him
19. 494 Marriage again during  Gopal Lal v. State of Rajasthan 1979: The second
lifetime of husband or marriage must be properly solemnised according to
wife(Bigamy) customary rites of the parties, to attract this section.
 Suraj Mani Stella Kujur (Dr.) v. Durga Charan
Hansdoh, 2001: This section not applicable where the
customs of the parties concerned have allowed a
second marriage.
20. 498A Husband or relative of  Inder Raj Malik v. Sunita Malik,1986: 498A and section
husband of woman 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act does not attract double
subjecting her to cruelty jeopardy, even if convicted under both.
 Bhaskar Lal Sharma v. Monica 2009: Threatening with
divorce to the complainant lady is not cruelty,
21. 499 Defamation  NCERT v. P.D. Bhatnagar 1980: Imputation should
have been made with intent to harm or knowing or
having reason to believe that it will harm the
reputation of such person or defame him.
 Parvathi v. Mannur Ltd. 1884: IPC makes no distinction
between written and spoken(verbal) defamation.
22. 503 Criminal Intimidation  Ganga Chandra Sen v. Gour Chunder Banikya 1883:
Threat must be communicated, to the person
threatened, for the purpose of influencing his mind.
 Communist Party of India v. Bharat Kumar 1998:
Bandh and Hartal would amount to criminal
intimidation if it is coupled with the threat of any injury
to the person or property, punishable under 503 and
506.

23. 509 Word, gesture or act  State of Punjab v. Major Singh: The question of what
intended to insult the constitutes an insult to female modesty requires no
modesty of a woman description.
 Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan: The Supreme Court
has defined ‘sexual harassment as a form of sex
discrimination projected through several ways like
unwelcome sexual advances request for sexual
favours, unreasonable interference with her work
performance etc.