https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778439 Cheating requires fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction; a mere subsequent failure to perform a promise does not satisfy the offence. The Court found no material showing intentional deception at the time of the alleged representation or any cogent facts of dishonest inducement to part with property or valuable security. Vague allegations and delay in lodging the FIR supported the view that the prosecution lacked bona fides. Applying the settled principles for quashing, including absence of a prima facie offence and mala fide prosecution, the criminal proceedings were held liable to be quashed, and no offence under Section 420 or Section 120B IPC was made out. en-us Mon, 15 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Sep 2025 08:31:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778439 Cheating requires fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction; a mere subsequent failure to perform a promise does not satisfy the offence. The Court found no material showing intentional deception at the time of the alleged representation or any cogent facts of dishonest inducement to part with property or valuable security. Vague allegations and delay in lodging the FIR supported the view that the prosecution lacked bona fides. Applying the settled principles for quashing, including absence of a prima facie offence and mala fide prosecution, the criminal proceedings were held liable to be quashed, and no offence under Section 420 or Section 120B IPC was made out. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 15 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778439