Prima facie allegations of inducement and assault can prevent quashing of cheating and hurt cognizance at the threshold.

Specific allegations that the accused induced the complainant to invest money on promises of repayment and profit-sharing, then refused to return the amount and assaulted him when repayment was demanded, were sufficient to disclose a prima facie case. On those pleaded facts, the High Court held that cognizance for offences of cheating and hurt could not be quashed at the threshold merely on the contention that no offence was made out. The quashing application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order taking cognizance for offences under Sections 323 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code was liable to be quashed for want of a prima facie case.

Analysis: The complaint alleged that the petitioners induced the complainant to invest money on the assurance of repayment and sharing of profit, that the complainant paid a substantial amount, that the petitioners thereafter declined to return the money as promised, and that the complainant was assaulted when he demanded repayment. On these allegations, a prima facie case of inducement and assault was made out.

Conclusion: The application for quashing was not maintainable on the pleaded facts and was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the complaint contains specific allegations showing inducement to part with money and subsequent assault, cognizance for cheating and hurt may not be quashed at the threshold on the ground that no offence is made out.

---