https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279633 Deception at the inception of a transaction is required to sustain a charge of cheating under the Penal Code; a mere later failure to honour a commercial or contractual promise does not, by itself, disclose criminality. On the facts, the complaint only alleged an assurance to pay part of an insurance claim followed by non-payment, with no independent basis for criminal conspiracy. The dispute was therefore essentially civil in nature, and continuation of the investigation and prosecution would amount to abuse of process. Quashing under the Code of Criminal Procedure was justified because the proceedings did not disclose any criminal offence. en-us Wed, 24 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Jun 2024 16:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279633 Deception at the inception of a transaction is required to sustain a charge of cheating under the Penal Code; a mere later failure to honour a commercial or contractual promise does not, by itself, disclose criminality. On the facts, the complaint only alleged an assurance to pay part of an insurance claim followed by non-payment, with no independent basis for criminal conspiracy. The dispute was therefore essentially civil in nature, and continuation of the investigation and prosecution would amount to abuse of process. Quashing under the Code of Criminal Procedure was justified because the proceedings did not disclose any criminal offence. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 24 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279633