Cheating complaint requires dishonest inducement and harm; dishonoured post-dated cheque alone is insufficient to sustain proceedings.

A complaint for cheating must plead deception, dishonest inducement, and resultant or likely harm; deception alone is insufficient. Where the complaint only alleged dishonour of a post-dated cheque and did not show that the complainant was induced to act or forbear in a manner causing legal harm, the ingredients of Section 415 IPC were not made out. In such circumstances, the High Court's inherent power under Section 561-A CrPC could be used to prevent abuse of process, and the criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should quash criminal proceedings for cheating where the complaint, on its face, disclosed only a dishonoured post-dated cheque and no averment of dishonest inducement causing or likely to cause harm.

Analysis: The inherent power preserved by Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code may be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of the court where a complaint does not disclose the ingredients of an offence. For cheating under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code, deception alone is insufficient; there must also be dishonest inducement to do or omit to do something, and the inducement must cause or be likely to cause harm. On the facts alleged, the cheque represented only a future promise to pay, the complainant did not act on any immediate inducement to forbear suit in a manner that caused legal harm, and the complaint itself did not plead the necessary damage or likelihood of damage.

Conclusion: The complaint did not disclose the offence of cheating, and the proceedings were liable to be quashed as an abuse of process.

Ratio Decidendi: A complaint for cheating is unsustainable unless it pleads deception, dishonest inducement, and resultant or likely harm; a mere broken promise to pay, including dishonour of a post-dated cheque, does not by itself constitute the offence.

---