Cheating and criminal breach of trust require dishonest intent, entrustment, and a legal basis for company liability.

A complaint arising from a loan or hire-purchase transaction is not maintainable for cheating or criminal breach of trust unless the allegations, taken at face value, show dishonest intention at inception, entrustment, or dishonest misappropriation. The text also states that where no natural person's mens rea is identified, a company cannot be fastened with criminal liability merely on the basis of the allegations, and a managing director cannot be proceeded against solely by virtue of office held in the absence of a statutory basis for vicarious liability under the Penal Code. It further notes that inherent jurisdiction may be used where the complaint discloses no offence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal complaint and the order issuing process against the accused company and its managing director disclosed the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust, and whether the proceedings could be quashed for want of criminal liability.

Analysis: The inherent power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be exercised where the complaint, taken at face value, does not disclose any offence. The allegations showed a loan transaction under a hire-purchase arrangement, default by the complainant, and repossession and disposal of the vehicle in terms of the agreement. On those facts, dishonest intention at the inception, which is essential for cheating, was not made out. Nor was entrustment or dishonest misappropriation established so as to attract criminal breach of trust. The complaint also failed to identify any natural person whose mens rea could be attributed to the company. In the absence of a statutory basis for vicarious liability under the Indian Penal Code, the managing director could not be proceeded against merely by reason of office held. The simultaneous invocation of cheating and criminal breach of trust was found to reflect non-application of mind.

Conclusion: The complaint and the order issuing process against the accused company and its managing director were liable to be quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: A complaint arising out of a loan or hire-purchase transaction cannot be sustained for cheating or criminal breach of trust where the allegations, even if accepted in full, do not show dishonest intention at the inception, entrustment, or any statutory basis for vicarious liability against company .

---