Civil dispute disguised as cheating complaint fails where specific ingredients are absent and the company is not arraigned as accused.

A complaint arising from monetary transactions was treated as a civil dispute rather than a criminal case because the record showed a parallel suit for recovery and no specific allegations establishing the ingredients of cheating. The Court found the assertions to be broad and unsupported, and held that the criminal process was being used to criminalise a private money dispute. It also applied the principle that, where the transaction relates to a company, failure to arraign the company as an accused creates a legal defect in the complaint. On these facts, the FIR was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the FIR alleging cheating and related offences disclosed a criminal case warranting continuation, or whether it was essentially a civil dispute liable to be quashed under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court.

Analysis: The complaint arose out of monetary transactions between the parties and the material placed before the Court showed that the amounts were claimed to have been paid for clearing alleged dues connected with a company. The record also showed that a civil suit for recovery of money had already been filed. The Court found no specific and supporting allegations establishing the essential ingredients of cheating, and held that the complaint was based on broad and unsupported assertions. The Court further relied on the principle that where the transaction is with a company, and the company is not arraigned as an accused, the complaint suffers from a legal defect. On these facts, the Court concluded that the criminal process was being used to give a criminal colour to a civil dispute.

Conclusion: The FIR was liable to be quashed and the criminal petition was allowed in favour of the petitioners.

---