Cheating requires dishonest intent at the outset; a later breach of a commercial arrangement does not justify criminal prosecution.

A complaint arising from a commercial settlement arrangement did not disclose cheating because there was no material showing fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction. The dispute concerned failure to pay a claimed consultancy fee after settlement terms were accepted and the underlying condition was not met within time. The Court reiterated that a later breach of contract, even if it gives rise to a civil claim, does not by itself satisfy the ingredients of cheating. As the complaint disclosed no deception or criminal intent when the promise was made, continuation of the criminal proceedings was treated as an abuse of process and quashing was justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint and the criminal proceedings disclosed the offence of cheating so as to justify quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The alleged agreement between the parties was a commercial arrangement for settlement assistance and consultancy fee. The material on record showed that the complainant accepted the terms, the cheque was not presented because the agreed precondition was not fulfilled within time, and the dispute arose from failure to pay the claimed fee after the settlement was eventually completed. For an offence of cheating, the decisive requirement is that fraudulent or dishonest intention must exist at the inception of the transaction. A mere subsequent failure to perform, even if it gives rise to a civil claim, does not by itself constitute cheating. On the complaint as presented, there was no material indicating any deception or dishonest intention when the promise was made.

Conclusion: The complaint did not disclose the ingredients of cheating or any other criminal offence, and continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process. Quashing was therefore warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: Where dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time of making the promise is absent, a subsequent breach of a commercial arrangement does not constitute cheating and criminal proceedings may be quashed.

---