IPC Section 207 : Fraudulent Claim To Property To Prevent Its Seizure As Forfeited Or In Execution

Section 207 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) addresses a specific form of fraudulent activity: making false claims to property to prevent its lawful seizure. This provision is crucial in upholding the integrity of judicial processes, ensuring that court orders and sentences are enforced without obstruction through deceptive means. This article provides an in-depth analysis of Section 207, exploring its elements, scope, relevant case laws, and its significance in the broader legal landscape.

Legal Provision

Section 207 of the IPC ‘Fraudulent claim to property to prevent its seizure as forfeited or in execution’ states:

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.

Key Elements Of The Offense

To establish guilt under Section 207, the prosecution must prove the following essential elements:

Fraudulent Act

The accused must have committed one of the following acts:

• Fraudulent Acceptance or Receipt: This involves knowingly accepting or receiving property or an interest therein, knowing they have no rightful claim.
• Fraudulent Claim: This involves falsely claiming ownership or an interest in the property.
• Practicing Deception: This encompasses any deceptive act related to the right to the property or interest therein. This could include forging documents, making false representations, or concealing relevant information.

Knowledge Of Lack Of Rightful Claim

The accused must have known that they had no legal right or legitimate claim to the property or the interest they were claiming. This element highlights the requirement of mens rea (guilty mind).

Intention To Prevent Seizure

The fraudulent act must have been committed with the specific intention of preventing the property or interest from being:

• Taken as forfeiture or in satisfaction of a fine under a criminal sentence (pronounced or likely to be pronounced).
• Taken in execution of a decree or order in a civil suit (made or likely to be made).

Key Details of IPC Section 207

Distinguishing Features And Scope

Several key aspects define the scope and application of Section 207:

Focus On Prevention

The core of the offense lies in the intention to prevent lawful seizure. The actual seizure need not occur for the offense to be complete. The act of making the fraudulent claim with the requisite intention is sufficient.

Application To Both Criminal And Civil Proceedings

Section 207 covers attempts to obstruct both criminal sentences (forfeiture and fines) and civil decrees (execution of orders). This broad application underscores the importance of protecting the integrity of the entire judicial system.

Knowledge Of Likely Proceedings

The section also applies to situations where the accused knows that a sentence or decree is likely to be pronounced or made. This addresses anticipatory attempts to shield property before a formal order is issued.

"Property" And "Interest Therein"

The provision applies to both tangible property (land, goods, etc.) and intangible interests in property (shares, rights, etc.). This comprehensive definition ensures that various forms of assets are protected.

Fraudulent Intent (Mens Rea)

The presence of fraudulent intent is a crucial element. The prosecution must prove that the accused acted dishonestly or with a mala fide intention to obstruct justice.

Relevant Case Laws

A few case laws based on Section 207 of the IPC are

Rajoli Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

In this case, the High Court addressed whether petitioners could be charged with forgery (Section 467 IPC) based solely on a Magistrate's complaint. The case stemmed from a land dispute where the petitioners presented a forged partition deed during execution proceedings of a civil decree. The court distinguished between offenses requiring a court complaint under Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C., clarifying that while offenses against public justice (Sections 193, 206, 207 IPC) did not necessitate such a complaint, forgery charges (Section 467 IPC) did if the forgery occurred while the document was in court custody. Finding no evidence of in-custody forgery, the court discharged the petitioners from the Section 467 charge, maintaining other charges related to false evidence and fraudulent claims.

Sidharth Gupta vs The State Of West Bengal

Here, the petitioner challenged a provisional court's order discharging the accused in a case involving alleged forgery, extortion, and fraudulent dispossession related to a trust property. The complainant alleged that the accused fraudulently obtained a gift deed and subsequently an eviction order, forcibly dispossessing him. The Magistrate initially rejected the accused's discharge petition, finding a prima facie case. However, the Sessions Judge reversed this, holding that no extortion could occur between co-sharers and no fraudulent claim to property was established. The High Court, in this revision, overturned the Sessions Judge's order, finding that the statement of Smt. Sibraji Gupta under Section 161 CrPC prima facie indicated coercion in obtaining her signature on the gift deed. The High Court restored the Magistrate's order, directing the trial to proceed.

Conclusion

Section 207 of the IPC is an essential provision that addresses a specific but significant form of fraudulent activity: attempting to prevent lawful seizure of property. By criminalizing fraudulent claims, receipts, and deceptive practices aimed at obstructing justice, this section safeguards the integrity of judicial proceedings and protects the rights of those entitled to the property. Continued vigilance, effective investigation techniques, and clear judicial interpretations are essential to ensure its continued effectiveness in the face of evolving methods of fraudulent activity.

FAQs

A few FAQs based on Section 207 of the IPC

Q1. Who can be charged under Section 207 IPC?

Anyone who fraudulently claims property or engages in deceptive practices with the intent to obstruct lawful seizure under court orders—both criminal and civil—can be charged under Section 207 IPC.

Q2. What types of property does Section 207 IPC apply to?

Section 207 applies to both tangible property (like land, goods) and intangible interests (such as shares, rights) to ensure a broad scope of protection.

Q3. What is the punishment under Section 207 IPC?

The punishment for fraudulent claims under Section 207 is imprisonment for up to two years, a fine, or both.

References

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/21753305/
2. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/183849448/