Contractual dispute and absence of dishonest intent at inception meant criminal cheating allegations could not stand.

A contractual dispute over non-payment of balance consideration and alleged deficient performance was treated as civil in character, not criminal. The complaint, read at face value, did not show fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception of the agreements, which is necessary to sustain a cheating allegation. The existence of arbitration and pending arbitral claims further reinforced that the controversy arose from contractual obligations rather than criminal conduct. As the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were not made out, the criminal complaint did not disclose a prima facie criminal case and the criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal complaint disclosed the offences alleged or merely gave rise to a civil dispute warranting quashing of the proceedings.

Analysis: The allegations, taken at face value, showed a contractual dispute concerning non-payment of balance consideration for services and alleged deficiency in performance. There was no material to indicate fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception of the agreements, which is essential for cheating. The existence of arbitration and pending arbitral claims also supported the conclusion that the controversy was essentially civil in character, and the ingredients of the alleged offences were not made out.

Conclusion: The complaint did not disclose a prima facie criminal case and the criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: A contractual dispute remains civil in nature and criminal process cannot be sustained unless the complaint discloses the essential ingredients of the alleged offence, including dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction.

---