Cheating requires dishonest intention at inception; where the dispute is civil and inducement is absent, prosecution cannot continue.

Cheating requires deception and fraudulent or dishonest inducement at the time of the representation or promise; mere failure or a later dispute is insufficient. On the facts, there was no false representation at the time of execution of the sale deed, no dishonest inducement was shown, and the alleged demolition was already part of pending civil proceedings. The record did not disclose dishonest intention at inception, so the criminal prosecution for cheating could not be sustained and the proceedings were liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint disclosed the offence of cheating under the Indian Penal Code so as to justify continuation of the criminal proceedings, or whether the dispute was essentially civil in nature.

Analysis: Cheating requires deception coupled with fraudulent or dishonest inducement at the time of the representation or promise. Mere failure or subsequent dispute is not enough. On the facts, there was no false or misleading representation by the accused at the time of execution of the sale deed, no dishonest inducement was shown, and the alleged demolition was found to be a matter already in issue in pending civil proceedings. The complainant was aware of the demolition and did not raise the alleged grievance in the civil suit in a manner consistent with the criminal complaint. The record therefore did not disclose the requisite dishonest intention at the inception necessary to sustain a prosecution for cheating.

Conclusion: No case for cheating was made out and the criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: For an offence of cheating, fraudulent or dishonest intention must exist at the time of the representation or promise; where the dispute is essentially civil and the ingredients of deception and dishonest inducement are absent, criminal prosecution cannot be sustained.

---