Cheque dishonour and alleged cheating can sustain parallel criminal prosecution when dishonest intent at inception is prima facie shown.

Criminal proceedings arising from a business transaction and cheque dishonour were not liable to be quashed where the complaint and charge sheet disclosed supply of goods, issuance and repeated dishonour of cheques for insufficiency of funds, and conduct suggesting non-payment after receipt of the goods. Parallel proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act did not by itself bar IPC prosecution because cheating requires dishonest intention at inception, which was prima facie alleged on the facts. The material on record disclosed a triable case of deception and wrongful loss, so threshold interference was unwarranted and the quash request was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings arising out of a business transaction and dishonour of cheques were liable to be quashed under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court.

Analysis: The complaint and charge sheet disclosed supply of goods, issuance of cheques, repeated dishonour for insufficiency of funds, and subsequent conduct indicating failure to pay after receipt of the goods. The existence of parallel proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 did not by itself bar prosecution for offences under the Indian Penal Code, since the ingredients of cheating require dishonest intention at inception, which was prima facie alleged on the facts. The material on record showed a triable case of deception and wrongful loss, and the matter was not one fit for interference at the threshold.

Conclusion: The request to quash the proceedings was rejected and the criminal case was allowed to proceed.

---