Cheating by Personation in India: Section 66D IT Act, 2000

By Advocate Panchanand Shaw, Bar Council of West Bengal · Published 4 Nov 2026 · Cyber law

Cheating by personation, when carried out online, is an offence under Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. It punishes a person who, by means of any communication device or computer resource, cheats by personating, which means pretending to be someone else in order to deceive. The punishment is imprisonment of either description up to three years and a fine up to one lakh rupees, and the offence is cognizable and bailable. The section is the digital twin of a much older offence and is routinely charged alongside it, because the same conduct offends both the special law and the general penal law.

The point of Section 66D is the method, not merely the result. Where a person lies to obtain money, the general cheating provision applies. Where the lie is a false identity and the channel is a phone, an app or a computer, Section 66D applies as well. That is why the words used in a complaint matter: a complaint that describes the deception of a named victim by a person adopting a false identity, and names the device or platform used, sits squarely within the section.

The two elements the prosecution must prove

First, there must be cheating. Cheating is the dishonest inducement of a person to deliver property or to act to their own detriment, and the ordinary meaning of dishonesty and fraud applies. Second, the cheating must be by personation, and it must be done by means of a communication device or a computer resource. Personation means pretending to be some other person, or knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing that a person is someone other than they really are; the person personated may be real or imaginary. The device element is satisfied by almost anything digital, from a phone call and a messaging app to a computer, a payment application or a website.

Why the device element matters

The phrase by means of any communication device or computer resource is what converts an ordinary personation into a cyber offence, and it is worth understanding because not every case fits. A face-to-face impersonation in a shop carried out entirely in person is not within Section 66D, however dishonest; it is a matter for the general cheating provisions. Where a single phone call is used to induce a bank transfer, the device element is plainly met even though the deception itself was verbal. Where the fraud runs through a messaging app, a payment application or a fake website, the electronic nature of the channel is obvious. The practical consequence is that a victim does not need to prove the use of a sophisticated tool; a phone number and a messaging thread are enough. What the victim does need is to preserve them.

How the fraud usually runs

Cheating by personation is a method, not a single scam, and the same section covers many shapes of it. The most common ones are worth recognising, because the way a complaint is framed should follow the method actually used.

In each case the offence is complete when property is dishonestly obtained by the false identity. An attempt that fails at the last step may still be punishable, but the framing changes, and a complaint should be candid about whether money or property actually moved.

Section 66D, BNS 319 and BNS 318: which applies

The conduct can fall under more than one provision, and courts look at each element separately rather than treating the sections as alternatives.

Where money is actually delivered, Section 318(4) of the BNS commonly carries the highest maximum, and it may be charged with Section 66D and Section 319. The significance for the accused is that bail, trial court and even the court's approach to the evidence can differ, so the charge is not a formality.

Distinguishing personation from a simple commercial dispute

Many complaints that arrive as cheating by personation are, on the facts, commercial disputes. If the seller was who they claimed to be, delivered defective goods, or failed to deliver for reasons of supply, the grievance is a broken contract, not a false identity, and the criminal route is liable to fail. The distinction turns on the identity adopted. Where the counterparty was real and the dispute is about performance, the remedy is civil. Where the counterparty did not exist, or was someone else entirely, and was invented or adopted to induce payment, the offence is made out. This is why the first task in any such complaint is to establish who, if anyone, the counterparty actually was, and to keep the platform logs that show the identity that was presented.

Following the money: reporting and recovery

1. Stop the loss immediately. Call your bank or payment provider, block the card or account if needed, and ask the bank's nodal officer to freeze the receiving account where it is within the bank's reach.
2. Report to the national helpline 1930, or on the portal cybercrime.gov.in, the same day if possible, because the money is easiest to intercept in the first hours. The transaction reference is the most important detail.
3. Report the account or profile to the platform, and ask it to preserve the logs. A fake profile that is deleted before preservation removes evidence.
4. Preserve everything: the messages, the caller number, the profile, the request that induced the payment, the transfer reference, and the bank statement showing the debit.
5. File a written complaint at the jurisdictional police station, framing the deception as cheating by personation by means of a device, so Section 66D is apparent on the face of the complaint.
6. If the police do not act, apply to the Magistrate under Section 175(3) of the BNSS to direct an investigation, or pursue a private complaint before the Magistrate.
7. On the civil side, consider a recovery claim against the wrongdoer, or where a bank's failure contributed to the loss, a complaint under the RBI's banking ombudsman framework.
8. Keep the certificate requirement of Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 in mind, so that the electronic records relied on can be proved in court.

What decides whether a cheating by personation case succeeds

The first question is whether the personation is proved. A profile can be faked, and a caller number can be spoofed, so the evidence must link the false identity to the accused rather than merely showing that a false identity was used. The second is inducement: the victim must have parted with money or property because of the deception, not for an independent reason. The third is attribution, because a log showing an account was used does not by itself show who used it. The fourth is the honesty of the victim's own account, because inconsistency between the complaint to the platform, the complaint to the bank and the complaint to the police is a gift to the defence. The fifth is the money trail, since a transfer that can be followed through intermediary accounts is often the strongest single piece of evidence, even where the identity of the fraudster is contested. Courts also weigh whether the accused was a principal or a mere account holder, because a person whose account was used to receive money is not automatically the person who cheated.

Common mistakes after an online impersonation fraud

• Negotiating with the fraudster for a refund, which prolongs the fraud and produces further payments.
• Delaying the report to the bank and the police, after which the money is layered beyond recovery.
• Deleting the messages and the profile before preserving them.
• Reporting only the money lost, and not the personation method, which weakens the fit with Section 66D.
• Assuming the recovery is automatic because a case was registered; a case and a recovery are two different things.
• Ignoring the connected civil remedy, whether against the wrongdoer or the bank, which may be the only route to civil recovery.

The role of the receiving bank and the platforms

Two institutions stand between the victim and the money: the receiving bank and the platform on which the false identity operated. Under the RBI directions on unauthorised electronic transactions, a customer who reports promptly and has not been negligent can have liability limited or even reduced to nil, and banks are expected to act on a report of an unauthorised transaction without undue delay. A platform is expected to preserve logs and to remove an offending profile once a genuine complaint is made. Neither the bank nor the platform will necessarily compensate the loss, but their records are frequently decisive in identifying where the money went, and their conduct can create a separate grievance that the banking ombudsman or a consumer forum may examine.

The defences that are actually run

The common defences are that there was no personation, only a commercial dispute; that the accused was not the person behind the profile or the number; that the complainant parted with the money voluntarily and for value; and that the accused merely lent or lost control of a bank account used by others. Each defence turns on evidence, and the last one in particular has led courts to insist that the prosecution show the accused's own dishonest participation, not merely that the accused's account received the money. That is why following the money and the device, rather than the money alone, is central to both sides.

When to involve a cyber crime lawyer

An online impersonation fraud is proved or lost in the first few days, before the money is layered and the logs are overwritten, and in the way the complaint is framed. A lawyer can help a victim move quickly on the bank, the platform and the police, and can help an accused test whether the prosecution has shown personation and inducement or is merely relying on a transaction. For cyber fraud in and around Kolkata, a cyber crime lawyer in Kolkata can assist with the complaint, any application to the Magistrate, and the connected recovery steps. To discuss a specific matter, use the contact page.

Frequently asked questions

Information for general guidance only and not legal advice. Provisions cited follow the Information Technology Act 2000, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023.

Related articles

• Online Cheating in India: Section 318 BNS and Punishment
• Voyeurism in India: Section 77 BNS Punishment and Defences
• Violation of Privacy in India: Section 66E IT Act Explained
• Unauthorised Access in India: Section 66 IT Act Explained
• Tampering with Computer Source Documents: Section 65 IT Act
• Stalking Online: Section 78 BNS Punishment and Defences

Cyber crime lawyer in your city · Bank account freeze help · Contact