Cheating in commercial transactions requires dishonest inducement at inception; mere non-payment or breach of promise is insufficient.

In a commercial credit transaction, cheating is made out only if the materials show dishonest inducement at the inception and resulting parting with property or wrongful loss. Here, the parties' dealings reflected a business arrangement for coal supply, and the later notarized agreement with non-payment did not by itself prove deception from the start. The record also did not show fresh supplies after that agreement or circumstances indicating the accused knew repayment was impossible. Mere breach of promise or failure to pay because of business setbacks was insufficient, so the criminal proceeding was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the allegations and materials disclosed cheating so as to justify continuation of the criminal proceeding, or whether the dispute was only a civil/commercial breach of contract liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The parties' dealings showed a continuing business transaction in which coal was supplied on credit. The crucial question was whether dishonest inducement existed at the inception of the transaction. The later notarized agreement and the non-payment under it, by themselves, did not establish deception from the beginning. The collected material did not show that, after the subsequent agreement, further supplies were made or that the complainant suffered wrongful loss on that footing. The record also did not disclose that the appellant was insolvent or in such financial straits that he must have known repayment was impossible. Mere failure to honour a promise or inability to pay because of business setbacks does not, without more, amount to cheating.

Conclusion: The allegations did not make out cheating and the criminal proceeding was not fit to continue; the quashing relief ought to be granted in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: To constitute cheating in a commercial transaction, the materials must show dishonest inducement at the inception and resultant parting with property or wrongful loss; a mere subsequent breach of promise or failure to repay does not, by itself, establish the offence.

---