Cheating requires dishonest inducement at the time of delivery; a later breach of promise supports civil liability, not criminal prosecution.

A complaint alleging cheating failed because the material did not show dishonest or fraudulent intention when the money was paid, nor any false representation that induced the payment. The later failure to honour the commitment to record the complainant as proprietor or to render accounts was at most a civil breach of contract and did not satisfy the ingredients of cheating. As the allegations, even if accepted as true, did not disclose an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, quashing of the criminal proceedings was justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint disclosed the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, or only a civil dispute arising from breach of contract, so as to justify quashing of the criminal proceedings under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis: The allegations were assumed to be true, but they did not show that the respondents had dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time the money was paid. There was no sufficient material to show that the appellant was deceived into parting with the money by any false representation made at the relevant time. The later failure to honour the commitment to show the appellant as proprietor or to render accounts may have given rise to civil liability, but that by itself did not establish the ingredients of cheating.

Conclusion: The complaint did not disclose an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the quashing of the criminal proceedings was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: For cheating, dishonest intention and deceptive inducement must exist at the time the property is delivered; a subsequent breach of promise or contract, without more, does not constitute the offence.

---