Dishonour Of Post-Dated Cheque By Itself Not Sufficient To Presume Dishonest Intention For Cheating: Supreme Court

The Court was hearing an appeal challenging the refusal of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings under Section 420 IPC, arising out of a financial transaction relating to investment in a movie project.

A Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra, while allowing the appeal, observed: “Ordinarily, post-dated cheques are issued either by way of security to discharge an existing or future liability or to discharge the liability at some point of time in future. It is quite possible that at the time of issuance of a post-dated cheque, the drawer may have reason to believe that he would have sufficient balance in his account by the date of the cheque. Therefore, in our view, dishonour of a post-dated cheque by itself is not sufficient to presume the existence of a dishonest intention on the part of its drawer.”

Background

The prosecution case arose from a financial arrangement where the complainant had advanced money to the appellant for the production of a movie, on the assurance of sharing profits.

Initially, an agreement was entered into for sharing profits in a specified proportion. Subsequently, additional funds were advanced for completion of the project, with a promise of enhanced returns.

When the project failed to generate profits, the appellant issued two post-dated cheques towards repayment of the principal amount, which were later dishonoured due to insufficient funds.

Based on these facts, criminal proceedings were initiated alleging offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The High Court quashed the charge under Section 406 IPC but permitted the proceedings under Section 420 IPC to continue, holding that a prima facie case of cheating was made out.

Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court seeking the quashing of the remaining criminal proceedings.

Court’s Observation

The Court undertook a detailed examination of the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating under Section 415 IPC and reiterated that deception and dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction are sine qua non for constituting the offence.

Referring to Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola Inc. (2011), the Court explained that deception must induce the complainant to part with property and such inducement must flow from a fraudulent or dishonest intention existing at the time the promise or representation was made.

The Court emphasised the settled principle that mere breach of contract or failure to fulfil a promise does not amount to cheating, unless it is shown that the promise itself was made with dishonest intent. In this regard, relying on Vesa Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2015), the Court observed: “Mere failure to keep the promise subsequently cannot be the sole basis to presume that dishonest intention existed from the very beginning.”

The Court further clarified that the determination of dishonest intention is ordinarily a matter of trial; however, where the nature of the transaction itself indicates the absence of such intent, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers, may quash the proceedings.

The Court elaborated: “…in our view, where the transaction between the parties is such that fulfilment of the promise is not entirely in the control of the promisor, or there is an inherent risk in fulfilment of the promise, the High Court may, in exercise of its inherent powers under the Code, or under Article 226 of the Constitution, as the case may be, upon consideration of the attending circumstances, take a decision whether the dishonest intention existed or not at the time of making the promise. And, if it comes to the conclusion that the alleged conduct of the parties does not reflect a dishonest intention of the accused from the very beginning, it may quash the criminal complaint/ proceedings and relegate the aggrieved party to civil remedies”.

Applying these principles, the Court analysed the nature of the transaction between the parties and found that the money was advanced for a movie production project, which inherently carries uncertainty and financial risk. The Court noted that the agreement was based on profit sharing, and therefore, the complainant had knowingly undertaken the risk of possible non-returns.

The Court observed that the promise to produce a movie was, in fact, fulfilled, as the movie was completed and released. Therefore, it could not be said that the initial representation was false or fraudulent. It further held that the absence of profits could not, by itself, establish dishonest intention on the part of the appellant.

On the issue of post-dated cheques, the Court drew a clear distinction between inducement at the inception of the transaction and subsequent acts aimed at discharging liability. It held that the post-dated cheques were issued not to induce investment but to repay an existing liability, and therefore could not be treated as evidence of initial fraudulent intent.

The Court categorically held: “Insofar as dishonour of those two cheques is concerned… those were post-dated cheques issued not as an inducement to obtain delivery of money… but to discharge an existing obligation at a future date.”

It further clarified that dishonour of such cheques may give rise to proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, but does not automatically attract criminal liability for cheating. The Court also rejected the argument that issuance of post-dated cheques implied representation of sufficient funds, observing that such cheques do not carry any assurance of present financial capacity.

The Court concluded that the allegations, taken at face value, did not disclose any dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction, and at best “only disclosed a civil cause of action and the High Court fell in error in not quashing the criminal proceedings”.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the ingredients of the offence of cheating were not made out and that the continuation of criminal proceedings amounted to an abuse of the process of law.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the criminal proceedings under Section 420 IPC were quashed.

Cause Title: V. Ganesan v. State Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 265)

Click here to read/download Judgment