Offence against property MCQ Quiz in தமிழ் - Objective Question with Answer for Offence against property - இலவச PDF ஐப் பதிவிறக்கவும்

The correct option is Extortion.

Key Points

• Extortion:-
  • It is defined under Section 383 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
  • This section says that any person who intentionally puts another person in fear of injury and dishonestly induces him or her to deliver any valuable property or anything signed which can be converted into valuable security is said to have committed extortion.
  • Example:
    • If D threatens A that he will keep A’s child in wrongful confinement and will kill him unless A delivers to him a sum of Rupees one lakh.
    • Then D has committed extortion.
  • Essentials of extortion:-
    • The person committing the offence should intentionally put the victim in fear of injury.
      • The fear of injury must be to such an extent that it is capable of unsettling the mind of the victim and forcing him to give his property.
    • The person committing the offence should dishonestly induce the victim so to put in fear to part with his (the victim’s) property.
  • Case:- R.S. Nayak v. A.R Antulay
    • In the landmark case, A.R. Antulay, a CM, promised the sugar cooperatives whose cases were pending before the government for consideration that their cases would be looked into if they donated money.
    • It was held that fear or threat should be used for extortion and since in this case, there was no fear of injury or threat it would not amount to extortion.
  • Punishment for extortion:-
    • Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code defines the punishment for extortion.
    • It states that any person who commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of up to 3 years or with fine or with both.

The correct option is Preparation.

Key Points

• Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code defines the offence of making preparations to commit dacoity.
• A dacoity is a form of robbery involving a group of people.
• The stages of the commission of an offence:
  • Intention:
    • At the stage of intention, no crime has been committed yet.
    • Intent alone is generally not sufficient to attract punishment under the IPC.
    • Intent becomes relevant when coupled with other actions that progress towards the commission of the offence.
  • Preparation:
    • Section 399 specifically deals with the stage of preparation to commit dacoity.
    • Making preparations is a step beyond mere intention.
    • The mere preparation may not attract punishment under the IPC.
    • It becomes more relevant when it progresses further.
  • Attempt:
    • Attempting to commit a crime involves taking concrete steps towards the commission of the offence but falling short of completing it.
    • Attempt to commit dacoity is punishable under Section 399 read with Section 402 of the IPC.
  • Commission:
    • The actual commission of the crime is the final stage.
    • If the offence is completed, it attracts punishment under the relevant section of the IPC.
• At the stage of "Preparation," it may not be sufficient to attract punishment under the IPC.
• The relevant stage for punishment would generally be the "Attempt" or "Commission" of the offence.

The correct answer is ​Robbery

Key Points Section 390 talks about Robbery.—In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.

• When theft is robbery.— Theft is “robbery” if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
• When extortion is robbery.— Extortion is “robbery” if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted.

The correct answer is Option 2.

Key Points 'A' who has a branch manager of a company took company's flat on rent but he did not vacate it even after his transfer to some other place despite several notices by the company. He was a guilty of criminal trespass under Section 441 of IPC. 

Additional Information Section 441: Criminal trespass.
Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property,
or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence,
is said to commit "criminal trespass".

The following important points may be noted with regard to the offence of criminal trespass: 

• Trespass can only be committed in respect of immovable corporeal property, such as land, house, etc. and not incorporeal property such as right of fishery.
• A person entering on the land of another in the exercise of a bonafide claim of right will not be guilty, though the claim is unfounded. But, if the entry is made with the 'intent to annoy' it does not matter whether it was made under a claim of right. 

Section 447: Punishment for Criminal Trespass

• The punishment for the offence of criminal trespass is imprisonment up to three months, or fine of Rs. 500, or both. 

The correct answer is Option 1.

Key Points In that case vivek is guilty of theft, because vivek is not legally entitled to the property alleged to be stolen that means vivek to take possession is unlawful and taking was without consent. The absence of the Ujjwal consent at the time of moving and the presence of dishonest intention in so taking at the time, are the essential ingredients of the offence of theft. 

Additional Information The dictionary meaning of Theft is “the act of stealing”, specifically “the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.”

Section 378 IPC : 
Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.

• Explanation 1.—A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being movable property, is not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth.
• Explanation 2.—A moving effected by the same act which effects the severance may be a theft.
• Explanation 3. -- A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which prevented it from moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually moving it.
• Explanation 4.—A person, who by any means causes an animal to move, is said to move that animal, and to move everything which, in consequence of the motion so caused, is moved by that animal.
• Explanation 5.—The consent mentioned in the definition may be express or implied, and may be given either by the person in possession, or by any person having for that purpose authority either express or implied.

The correct answer is Option 3.

Key Points The offence of mischief is not committed if there is no wrongful loss or damage, or if there is only an invasion of a civil right. Mischief involves mental destructive animus.
In that case, there is no intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or any person because here the dispute between the parties bonafide and civil right.  

Criminal Trespass depends on the intention and upon the nature of the act. If, for instance, a person with intent to save his family and property from imminent destruction commits criminal trespass on his neighbour's land, and cuts a portion of dam belonging to his neighbour, he is not guilty of criminal trespass.

Additional InformationThe concept of mischief is defined in Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and the corresponding punishment is outlined in Section 426 of the IPC. Additionally, Sections 427 to 440 of the IPC specify the punishment for aggravated forms of mischief, considering the nature and value of the property damage.
According to Section 425 of the IPC (Indian Penal Code) enacted in 1860, mischief is committed when an individual intentionally causes destruction or damage to any property, thereby reducing its value and usefulness, resulting in unnecessary loss or damage to the public or any person. This applies to situations where the person performing the act is aware that it is likely to cause harm to the property.
Illustrations: 
For a simple understanding, some examples of mischief under IPC that can be seen are:

• ‘A’ destroys a car jointly owned by ‘A’ and ‘B’, intending wrongful loss to ‘B
• ‘A’, a student takes a copy of the question paper before the exam to diminish its utility.
• ‘A’ damages important documents belonging to ‘B’, intending wrongful loss to ‘B’.
• ‘A’ causes cattle to enter the property of ‘B’ to cause damage to his crops.
• ‘A’ deliberately throws a ball at the neighbour’s window.

 The correct answer is House Breaking 

Key Points According to Section 445 of the IPC, A person is said to commit “house-breaking” who commits house-trespass if he effects his entrance into the house or any part of it in any of the six ways hereinafter described;

Or if, being in the house or any part of it for the purpose of committing an offence, or having committed an offence therein, he quits the house or any part of it in any of it in such six ways, that is to say:

• If he enters or quits through a passage made by himself, or by any abettor of the house-trespass, in order to the committing of the house-trespass.
• If he enters or quits through any passage not intended by any person, other than himself or an abettor of the offence, for human entrance; or through any passage to which he has obtained access by scaling or climbing over any wall or building.
• If he enters or quits through any passage which he or any abettor of the house-trespass has opened, in order to the committing of the house-trespass by any means by which that passage was not intended by the occupier of the house to be opened.
• If he enters or quits by opening any lock in order to the committing of the house-trespass, or in order to the quitting of the house after a house-trespass.
• If he effects his entrance or departure by using criminal force or committing an assault, or by threatening any person with assault.
• If he enters or quits by any passage which he knows to have been fastened against such entrance or departure, and to have been unfastened by himself or by an abettor of the house-trespass.
   

The correct answer is No

Key Points

• Robbery Defined under IPC:
  • As per Section 390 IPC, robbery is an aggravated form of theft or extortion, where hurt or wrongful restraint is used.
  • If voluntarily causing hurt is used during commission of theft, it becomes robbery.
• Section 394 IPC – Robbery with Hurt:
  • This provision already includes the offence of hurt as an element of robbery.
  • So when “A” commits robbery and causes hurt, he is charged under Section 394, which covers both robbery and voluntarily causing hurt.
• Bar on Multiple Charges for Same Act – Section 220(1) CrPC:
  • When an act constitutes one offence under a special definition (like Section 394), the accused cannot be charged separately for the component offences (like Sections 323 and 392).
  • It prevents double jeopardy and ensures procedural efficiency.
• Legal Principle – Included Offences:
  • Section 323 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt) and Section 392 IPC (robbery) are included within Section 394 IPC.
  • Therefore, separate charges are unnecessary and impermissible.

Additional Information 

• Option 1. Yes: Incorrect because Section 394 IPC already covers both robbery and hurt; separate charges would be redundant.
• Option 3. With the permission of Sessions Court: Incorrect as permission doesn’t override the bar against splitting offences already covered in a compound provision like Section 394.
• Option 4. Depends upon the discretion of the court: Incorrect because the legal bar under CrPC and IPC is mandatory; discretion doesn't apply when the law explicitly treats it as a single offence.