Cheating requires dishonest intention from the start; mere non-refund or broken promise does not justify a Section 420 charge.

Cheating under Section 420 IPC requires deception, dishonest or fraudulent inducement, and dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction. Mere later non-fulfilment of a promise or a dispute over non-refund of money is insufficient without clear material showing such initial intention. On the facts, the allegations against the appellant were limited to his accompanying his father, while the assurance to the complainant was attributed to the father, and no specific material showed that the appellant himself induced the complainant dishonestly. The charge under Section 420 was therefore not made out against the appellant, and refusal to discharge him was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the allegations in the first information report and the material collected during investigation disclosed the ingredients of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 so as to justify framing of charge and refusal of discharge.

Analysis: The essential ingredients of cheating require deception, fraudulent or dishonest inducement, and a dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. Mere failure to fulfil a promise later, or a dispute arising out of non-refund of money, does not by itself establish cheating unless the dishonest intention existed from the inception. On the facts, the allegations against the appellant were limited to his accompanying his father; the assurance to the complainant was attributed to the father, and there was no clear allegation that the appellant himself fraudulently or dishonestly induced the complainant to part with money. The order rejecting discharge also did not identify material showing the ingredients of Section 420 were made out.

Conclusion: The charge under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was not made out against the appellant, and the refusal to discharge him was unsustainable.

---