Cheating and personation allegations fail where no victim or dishonest inducement at inception is shown, warranting quashing.

Cheating under Section 420 IPC requires the foundational ingredients of Section 415 IPC, including deception and fraudulent or dishonest inducement from the inception. The complaint did not identify any deceived victim or material showing dishonest intention at the time of the alleged transaction, and the allegations instead arose from GST-related investigation and suspected business illegality. For the same reason, cheating by personation under Section 66D of the IT Act was not made out, and the conspiracy allegation under Section 120B IPC also could not survive. In these circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings amounted to abuse of process, and the Court held that the FIR and further proceedings were liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the allegations in the FIR disclosed the ingredients of cheating under Sections 415 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and cheating by personation under Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and whether the continuation of the criminal proceedings was liable to be quashed.

Analysis: For an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the foundational requirement is the existence of cheating as defined in Section 415, which in turn requires deception of a person and fraudulent or dishonest inducement from the inception. The complaint did not disclose any identified victim who had been deceived, nor any material showing dishonest intention at the time of the alleged transaction. The allegations instead reflected a dispute arising from GST-related investigation and suspected illegality in business operations. The same deficiency affected the invocation of Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, because cheating by personation was not made out on the facts alleged. Once the principal offences were not disclosed, the allegation of conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 also could not survive. The continued investigation for an extended period, in the absence of any complainant-victim or material showing the essential ingredients of the offences, amounted to abuse of the process of law. The inherent jurisdiction was therefore attracted to prevent miscarriage of justice.

Conclusion: The criminal proceedings were not sustainable and were liable to be quashed in favour of the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The Court held that the FIR and all further proceedings could not continue, as the allegations did not disclose the essential criminal ingredients and were an abuse of the process of law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the complaint does not disclose fraudulent or dishonest inducement at the inception and no victim of deception is identifiable, offences of cheating and allied conspiracy or personation are not made out, and criminal proceedings may be quashed under the Court's inherent powers to prevent abuse of process.

---