Last reviewed: November 1, 2026
The question “which Section of the IT Act addresses cyber fraud?” is a common one, and the answer is not a single section — it is a combination of IT Act sections and BNS sections that are applied together. The IT Act, 2000 (as amended in 2008 and 2015) provides the “cyber-specific” sections; the BNS 2023 (which replaced the IPC on 1 July 2024) provides the “fraud” sections. A “cyber fraud” complaint in India is a “combined” complaint — the FIR is filed under the relevant BNS section(s) and the IT Act section(s) that apply to the specific type of fraud. Bijlani & Co. represents both victims and accused persons in cyber fraud matters across Delhi NCR.
The IT Act Cyber Sections: A Complete Map
Section 66 — “Computer-related offences” — for “accessing” a computer system “without authorisation” and causing “loss” or “damage.” The offence is a “computer unauthorised access” offence; it is a “data breach” offence. Section 66A — “Identity theft” — for “falsely representing” the identity of another person in a computer system. Section 66A was “deleted” by the 2008 amendment and replaced by Section 66C; the “deletion” is the most common source of confusion. Section 66B — “Crime related to data or computer code” — for “copying” or “publishing” a “computer code” without authorisation. Section 66C — “Identity theft / credential theft” — for “using” another person’s “identity mark” (credit card, password, biometric, etc.) to “make a fraudulent transaction.” Section 66C is the “primary” cyber fraud section; it is the “identity theft” offence. Section 66D — “Cyber cheating with personal information” — for “cheating” by “deceitfully” obtaining “personal information” (password, OTP, PIN, etc.) and using it to “make a fraudulent transaction.” Section 66D is the “cyber fraud” section — it is the “cheating” offence that is “cyber-specific.” Section 66E — “Violation of privacy” — for “capturing” or “transmitting” another person’s “private information” without their consent. Section 66E is the “privacy” offence; it is not a “fraud” offence.
The BNS Fraud Sections That Apply to Cyber Fraud
BNS Section 318 — “Cheating” — for “dishonestly” inducing another person to do an act which that person is not “legally bound” to do. The “dishonest intention” is the key element; a “bona fide mistake” is not “dishonesty.” BNS Section 339 — “Dishonest misappropriation of property” — for “taking” or “retaining” property that is “not your own” with a “dishonest intention.” Section 339 is the “misappropriation” offence; it is the “conversion” offence. BNS Section 340 — “Dishonestly inducing delivery of property” — for “inducing” another person to “deliver” property by “cheating” or “misappropriation.” Section 340 is the “most common” BNS fraud section; it is the “inducement” offence. BNS Section 341 — “Criminal intimidation” — for “threatening” a person to “cause injury” to them if they do not do an act. Section 341 is a “coercion” offence; it applies to a “cyber extortion” case.
How a Cyber Fraud FIR Is Filed in Delhi NCR
A “cyber fraud” complaint is filed in the “Cyber Cell” of the police station that has “territorial jurisdiction” over the “place of the offence.” For a “cyber” offence, the “place of the offence” is the “place where the computer system was accessed” (the “victim’s” location) or the “place where the money was received” (the “perpetrator’s” location). In Delhi NCR, the “cyber cell” that handles “cyber fraud” complaints is the “Cyber Crime Cell” of the “Delhi Police” (for Delhi) or the “UP Cyber Crime Cell” (for Noida/Ghaziabad). The “FIR” must specify: (1) the “date and time” of the fraud; (2) the “amount” of the fraud; (3) the “perpetrator’s” phone number, email, or social media ID; (4) the “bank details” of the “fraudulent transaction”; and (5) the “IT Act section” and “BNS section” that apply. A “cyber fraud” FIR that does not specify the “IT Act section” is a “defective” FIR; it is a “procedural” defect that can be cured by an “application” to the “Magistrate” under Section 174 of the BNSS.
The “Cyber Fraud” Section Selection Table
Type of fraud → IT Act section → BNS section: (1) Phishing / credential theft → Section 66C + BNS 318/340. (2) “OTP fraud” / “SIM swap” fraud → Section 66D + BNS 318. (3) “Fake job offer” / “consultancy” fraud → Section 66D + BNS 318/340. (4) “P2P investment” / “trading” fraud → Section 66D + BNS 318/339. (5) “Online dating” / “romance” fraud → Section 66D + BNS 318/340. (6) “Data breach” / “privacy” offence → Section 66E + BNS 318 (if there is a “fraud” element). (7) “Cyber extortion” → Section 66D + BNS 341. The “IT Act section” is the “cyber-specific” section; the “BNS section” is the “fraud” section. The two are “cumulative” — a “cyber fraud” complaint is always a “combined” complaint.
The “BNS 318” — Cheating: The Most Important BNS Section
BNS Section 318 is the “cheating” offence. It is the “most commonly” applied BNS section in a “cyber fraud” case. The elements of BNS 318 are: (1) the “perpetrator” “dishonestly” or “fraudulently”; (2) “induces” another person; (3) to do an act which that person is “not legally bound” to do; (4) and by that act, causes “loss” or “damage.” The “dishonest intention” is the “key element.” A “cyber fraud” case is a “BNS 318” case if the “perpetrator” had a “dishonest intention” at the “time of the inducement.” The “dishonest intention” is “not” the “same” as “mistake” — a “bona fide mistake” is “not” a “dishonest intention.” The “burden of proof” is on the “complainant” — the “complainant” must “prove” that the “perpetrator” had a “dishonest intention.” The “Cyber Cell” investigates the “BNS 318” elements; the “Magistrate” (the “Judicial Magistrate”) “grants” the “arrest warrant” or the “summons.” The “trial” is in the “Magistrate’s court” (if the “penalty” is up to 2 years) or the “Sessions court” (if the “penalty” is above 2 years).
Frequently Asked Questions
Which Section of the IT Act addresses “cyber cheating”?
Section 66D of the IT Act, 2000 is the “cyber cheating” section. It provides for “cheating” by “deceitfully” obtaining “personal information” (password, OTP, PIN, etc.) and using it to “make a fraudulent transaction.” The “penalty” is “2 years” imprisonment and a “fine” up to ₵5 lakh. A “cyber cheating” complaint is a “combined” complaint under “Section 66D” and “BNS 318” — the “IT Act section” is the “cyber-specific” section; the “BNS section” is the “fraud” section.
What is the difference between IT Act Section 66C and Section 66D?
Section 66C is “identity theft / credential theft” — the “perpetrator” is “using” another person’s “identity mark” (credit card, password, biometric) to “make a fraudulent transaction.” Section 66D is “cyber cheating” — the “perpetrator” is “cheating” by “deceitfully obtaining” “personal information” and using it to “make a fraudulent transaction.” The difference is: Section 66C is “using” the “identity mark”; Section 66D is “obtaining” the “personal information.” A “phishing” case is a “Section 66D” case (the “perpetrator” “obtains” the “OTP” by “deceit”); a “credit card theft” case is a “Section 66C” case (the “perpetrator” “uses” the “stolen credit card”).
What is the “limitation period” for a cyber fraud complaint?
The “limitation period” for a “BNS 318” (cheating) complaint is “2 years” from the “date of the offence.” The “limitation period” for a “Section 66D” complaint is also “2 years.” A “cyber fraud” complaint that is filed “after” the “limitation period” is “time-barred” — the “Magistrate” must “reject” it. The “limitation period” runs from the “date the “complainant” “discovered” the fraud, “not” from the “date the fraud occurred.” A “complainant” who “discovers” the fraud “6 months” later can file the complaint “within” the “2-year” period from the “discovery date.”
Can a “cyber fraud” case be “compounded”?
Yes. BNS 318 is a “compoundable” offence — the “complainant” can “settle” the case with the “perpetrator” and “withdraw” the complaint “before” the “Magistrate” or the “Sessions court” “records” a “final order.” A “Section 66D” complaint is also “compoundable.” The “compounding” is a “private settlement” — the “complainant” “forgives” the “perpetrator” and “withdraws” the “complaint.” The “compounding” is “not” “admissible” after the “Magistrate” has “recorded” a “final order” — it is a “pre-final-order” settlement. Bijlani & Co. represents “perpetrators” in “compounding” negotiations and “complainants” in “withholding” the “compounding.”
