https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414285 A loan or business arrangement, supported by agreements and subsequent conduct, did not establish cheating under Section 420 IPC because mere non-repayment and cheque dishonour, without material showing deceptive intent at inception, was insufficient to prove mens rea. By contrast, a cheque described as security was still capable of attracting Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act where the loan had fallen due and the cheque was presented after the agreed due date, indicating an existing legally recoverable liability. The cheating allegation failed, but the cheque dishonour complaint survived and was restored for trial on the Section 138 issue. en-us Thu, 28 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 May 2026 12:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414285 A loan or business arrangement, supported by agreements and subsequent conduct, did not establish cheating under Section 420 IPC because mere non-repayment and cheque dishonour, without material showing deceptive intent at inception, was insufficient to prove mens rea. By contrast, a cheque described as security was still capable of attracting Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act where the loan had fallen due and the cheque was presented after the agreed due date, indicating an existing legally recoverable liability. The cheating allegation failed, but the cheque dishonour complaint survived and was restored for trial on the Section 138 issue. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 28 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414285