Cheating not made out against a marketplace intermediary where no dishonest inducement or deceptive role was shown at inception.

A complaint for cheating against an e-commerce marketplace intermediary failed because the materials did not show dishonest inducement from the inception of the transaction. The petitioner was only a facilitator, not the seller, supplier or owner of the goods, and no direct role was shown in dispatch, delivery or refund, nor any deceptive representation to induce payment. On those facts, the essential ingredients of cheating were absent, and the magistrate's order issuing process could not stand. The Bombay HC therefore quashed the complaint and the process insofar as they related to the petitioner, treating the matter as at most a commercial or consumer dispute.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint and the order issuing process disclosed the ingredients of cheating against an e-commerce intermediary, and whether the criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The dispute arose from a marketplace-based e-commerce transaction in which the petitioner acted only as a facilitator and not as the seller, supplier, or owner of the goods. The complaint and the inquiry material did not show that the petitioner had any direct role in dispatch, delivery, or refund, or that there was any dishonest representation made to induce the complainant to part with money. In the absence of material showing deceptive intention at the inception of the transaction, the essential ingredients of cheating were not made out, and the magistrate's order issuing process could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The criminal complaint and the order issuing process were quashed insofar as they related to the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings against the petitioner were terminated because the allegations, even if accepted, disclosed at most a commercial or consumer dispute and not a criminal case of cheating.

Ratio Decidendi: For an offence of cheating to be made out, the complaint must disclose dishonest inducement from the inception of the transaction; where the accused is only a neutral marketplace intermediary and no such intention or role is shown, criminal process cannot be sustained.

---