Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Chapter XI: Of False Evidence and Offences against Public Justice
Section 207: Fraudulent claim to property to prevent its seizure as forfeited or in execution
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to matters and proceedings from before that date, as the repealing law provides.
In plain words
Fraudulently accepting, receiving or claiming property one has no right to, or practising deception about rights in it, to prevent it being taken as a forfeiture, for a fine, or in execution of a civil decree, is punishable with imprisonment of either description for up to two years, or fine, or both.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
Whoever fraudulently accepts, receives or claims any property or any interest therein, knowing that he has no right or rightful claim to such property or interest, or practices any deception touching any right to any property or any interest therein, intending thereby to prevent that property or interest therein from being taken as a forfeiture or in satisfaction of a fine, under a sentence which has been pronounced, or which he knows to be likely to be pronounced by a Court of Justice or other competent authority, or from being taken in execution of a decree or order which has been made, or which he knows to be likely to be made by a Court of Justice in a civil suit, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 207
-
HDFC Bank Ltd. v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
What is the nature of enquiry while determining quashing of a First Information Report u/s.482 Cr.P.C., against a Bank and its Officials.
- Jitender @ Jittu v. The State of N.C.T. of Delhi
- Azad @ Gourav v. State of Gnct of Delhi & Anr
- Bharat Kumar Goswami v. The State of Delhi
- Muthuramalingam & Ors. v. State Rep. by Insp. of Police
- Salim Akhtar @ Mota v. State of Uttar Pradesh