What is IPC Section 25?
IPC Section 25 sits in Chapter II of the Indian Penal Code, "General Explanations," directly following Section 24 ("dishonestly"). Together, these two provisions supply the Code's two principal mens rea (mental state) definitions for deception-related offences — "dishonestly," which focuses narrowly on intending wrongful gain or wrongful loss of property, and "fraudulently," which focuses more broadly on intending to defraud, a concept that can extend beyond purely property-related harm.
Despite its brevity, Section 25 has generated a significant body of judicial interpretation, since the Code itself doesn't define "defraud" any further. Courts have generally held that "intent to defraud" involves deception combined with some element of actual or possible injury to the person deceived — meaning the definition is narrower than simple deceit alone, and requires courts to examine both the deceptive act and its intended or likely consequences.
Important Update: IPC to BNS Transition
With effect from 1 July 2024, the Indian Penal Code has been replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 for offences committed on or after that date. Section 25 IPC now corresponds to Section 2(9) of the BNS, which retains an essentially identical definition, with minor phraseology changes for modern legal drafting.
Legal Provision — Text of Section 25 IPC
This definition should be read together with Section 24 ("dishonestly"), which supplies the Code's other key deception-related mental state, focused specifically on intending wrongful gain or wrongful loss of property. Where a specific offence requires an act to be done "fraudulently," "dishonestly," or "fraudulently or dishonestly," the applicable definition (or definitions) from Sections 24 and 25 governs what the prosecution must establish.
Nature & Scope of Section 25
| Nature of Provision | General definition/explanation — it does not create an offence or prescribe any punishment |
|---|---|
| Purpose | Fixes the meaning of "fraudulently" wherever that word appears elsewhere in the IPC |
| Core Test | Intent to defraud — deception generally combined with some element of actual or possible injury |
| Distinguished From | "Dishonestly" (Section 24), which focuses specifically on wrongful gain or wrongful loss of property |
| BNS 2023 Equivalent | Section 2(9) (essentially identical definition) |
Because Section 25 has no independent punishment, cognizability, or bailability of its own, these classifications are determined entirely by whichever substantive offence provision the term "fraudulently" is being applied to — for example, Section 463 (forgery) or Section 415 (cheating).
How Courts Interpret "Intent to Defraud"
Deception alone is not enough
Courts have generally held that mere deception, without more, does not satisfy the "intent to defraud" test — there must generally be some further element of actual or possible injury to the person deceived.
The injury need not be purely financial
Unlike "dishonestly," which is tied to property, "fraudulently" can extend to non-property harms — for example, deceiving someone in a way that affects a legal right, a reputation, or another significant interest.
The intent must exist at the time of the act
The relevant fraudulent intent must be present when the act is done — a later change of heart, or subsequent realisation that an earlier act might cause harm, does not retroactively make an innocent act fraudulent.
Where "Fraudulently" Is Used in the IPC
The definition established by Section 25 is a core mens rea element across several of the Code's significant provisions, including:
- Section 463 — forgery, which requires the making of a false document or electronic record with intent to cause damage or injury, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed.
- Section 415 — cheating, which can be established through either fraudulent or dishonest inducement, depending on the specific facts.
- Numerous other offences throughout the Code involving deception, misrepresentation, or fraudulent dealing, where "fraudulently" appears either alone or alongside "dishonestly."
Because "fraudulently" and "dishonestly" are related but distinct concepts, establishing precisely which mental state applies — and whether the specific facts satisfy it — is often a central, closely contested issue in prosecutions involving forgery, cheating, and related deception offences.