Civil dispute lacking cheating ingredients cannot justify criminal process when dishonest intent at inception is not shown.

Allegations arising from an agreement to sell were held not to disclose a prima facie case of cheating where the dispute was essentially civil, the complaint was filed after substantial delay, and the necessary dishonest or fraudulent intention at inception was not shown. The Court found that the Magistrate failed to apply judicial mind to the police report and that the High Court affirmed the order mechanically. On those facts, issuance of process and continuation of the criminal proceedings were unsustainable and were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal complaint, arising out of an alleged agreement to sell, disclosed the ingredients of cheating so as to justify issuance of process and continuation of criminal proceedings.

Analysis: The allegations stemmed from a long-pending contractual dispute. The complaint was filed after a substantial lapse of time from the alleged agreement and after the accused had expressly denied the agreement and receipt of advance in reply to notice. The complaint and the material placed before the Magistrate did not disclose a prima facie case of cheating, as the dispute was essentially civil in nature and the necessary dishonest or fraudulent intention at the inception was not shown. The Magistrate also failed to apply judicial mind to the police report and the High Court affirmed the order mechanically.

Conclusion: The issuance of process and the continuation of the criminal proceedings were unsustainable and were set aside in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the allegations disclose only a civil dispute and do not prima facie establish the ingredients of cheating, criminal process cannot be allowed to continue, particularly when the complaint is instituted after inordinate delay and amounts to abuse of process.

---