Cheating requires dishonest intention at inception; a mere contract breach will not sustain criminal prosecution.

A complaint alleging cheating must disclose deception and fraudulent or dishonest inducement, with dishonest intention present at the inception of the transaction; a mere failure to perform contractual obligations does not, by itself, establish the offence. Where the allegations and correspondence show only a commercial dispute over performance of the contract and rejection of machinery, without a clear averment of initial mens rea, criminal prosecution is not sustainable. In such circumstances, the inherent power may be invoked to prevent abuse of process where the complaint does not disclose the alleged offence, and the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint, read as a whole, disclosed the ingredients of cheating so as to justify the criminal proceedings, or whether the dispute was merely a civil contract dispute warranting quashing under the inherent jurisdiction.

Analysis: For an offence of cheating, the complaint must show deception and fraudulent or dishonest inducement, and the requisite dishonest intention must exist at the time of the promise or representation. Mere failure to perform a contractual obligation, without allegations showing mens rea at the inception of the transaction, does not by itself constitute cheating. The correspondence and allegations disclosed a commercial dispute concerning performance of the contract and rejection of the machine, but did not disclose a clear averment that the appellants had a dishonest intention from the beginning. In such a situation, the High Court was required to examine whether the complaint made out any offence at all, because the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code is available to prevent abuse of process where the complaint does not disclose the offence alleged.

Conclusion: The complaint did not make out the offence of cheating and the criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: A criminal prosecution for cheating cannot be sustained on a mere breach of contract unless the complaint alleges facts showing fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction.

---