https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368443 For cheating under Section 420 IPC, the complaint must contain a clear allegation that dishonest intention existed at the inception of the transaction; mere later non-payment or failure to honour a promise is insufficient. Here, the allegations concerned unpaid liaisoning fees and did not show fraudulent intent from the start, so the essential ingredient of cheating was not made out. Where the dispute was essentially civil in nature and a recovery suit was already pending, criminal prosecution could not be used to convert a contractual payment dispute into criminality. The complaint and orders framing charge were quashed, and the applicants were discharged. en-us Tue, 14 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Oct 2018 06:43:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368443 For cheating under Section 420 IPC, the complaint must contain a clear allegation that dishonest intention existed at the inception of the transaction; mere later non-payment or failure to honour a promise is insufficient. Here, the allegations concerned unpaid liaisoning fees and did not show fraudulent intent from the start, so the essential ingredient of cheating was not made out. Where the dispute was essentially civil in nature and a recovery suit was already pending, criminal prosecution could not be used to convert a contractual payment dispute into criminality. The complaint and orders framing charge were quashed, and the applicants were discharged. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 14 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368443