Cheating requires dishonest intention at the inception; a mere breach of contract remains a civil dispute.

A complaint alleging cheating must contain specific facts showing fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction. On the facts, the dispute arose from non-payment of the balance due under a commercial arrangement after substantial payments had already been made, and the allegations did not show dishonest inducement when the parties entered into the transaction. Mere use of the words "cheating" or "deceive" was held insufficient without supporting averments. The Court treated the matter as a civil dispute arising from breach of contractual obligations, and the order issuing process was rightly set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint disclosed the offence of cheating under the Indian Penal Code, or only a civil dispute arising out of breach of contractual obligations.

Analysis: The complaint and supporting notice showed that the dispute arose from non-payment of the balance amount under a commercial arrangement after substantial payments had already been made. The allegations did not contain specific averments that, at the time of entering into the transaction, the accused had a fraudulent or dishonest intention to deceive or induce delivery of property. Mere use of expressions such as "cheating" or "deceive" was held insufficient without supporting factual assertions showing dishonest inducement from the inception. The governing principle applied was that a mere failure to keep a promise or discharge a contractual obligation does not by itself constitute cheating unless the requisite mens rea existed at the start of the transaction.

Conclusion: The complaint did not make out an offence of cheating and the matter was only a civil dispute; the order issuing process was rightly set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A mere breach of contract, without specific allegations of fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction, does not constitute cheating.

---