The existence of dishonest intention from inception is crucial for establishing the offense of cheating; mere default in loan repayment is insufficient for criminal prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant revision under Section 442 BNSS corresponding to 401 Cr.P.C. is at behest of the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 11^th July, 2025 passed in connection with C.T. No.101(A) of 2023 by the learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court under the OPID Act, Cuttack, Odisha, whereby, an application under Section 262 read with Section 239 Cr.P.C. moved by her seeking discharge from the offences punishable under Sections 420 , 506 and 120-B IPC read with Section 34 was rejected on the ground inter alia that such decision is otherwise illegal, without proper evaluation of the materials on record, hence, the same is liable to be interfered with and set at naught.

2. In fact, the petitioner has been chargesheeted for the alleged offences in connection with EOW, Odisha, Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.12 dated 23^rd March, 2023. Initially a written report was lodged at the Airfield P.S. Bhubaneswar on 9^th October, 2021 and accordingly, a case was registered against the petitioner and her husband, namely, Rajiv Lochan Das. But, thereafter the investigation in respect of Airfield P.S. Case No.265 of 2021 was handed over to the EOW, Odisha, Bhubaneswar. The prosecution allegation in brief is that the informant was approached by the petitioner and her husband multiple times to help them in investment. It has been alleged that the petitioner represented herself as running a successful interior designing and decoration business at Bhubaneswar with brand of international repute, whereas, husband dealing with land business including construction and real estate and have vast experience in the said field and by such means, his trust was gained. The further case of the informant is that in between 18^th-23^rd November, 2019, the petitioner and her husband, in course of discussions, requested him for a friendly loan for expansion of her business in the name of Bright Home Décor and promised to return the money and/or adjust the same in the construction of a Villa for him with its interior design and since he was approached many times, an amount of Rs.70 lac was given in loan through RTGS on 19^th December, 2019 and as security agreements were signed between them on 10^th December, 2019. It has been alleged that soon after the friendly loan, the petitioner and her husband avoided the informant and ultimately closed Bright Home Décor and also its account in the year 2020. At last, after the FIR was lodged, Airfield P.S. Case No.265 dated 9^th October, 2021 was registered and as earlier stated, the investigation therein was taken over by the EOW, Odisha, Bhubaneswar.

3. According to the petitioner, initially, the chargesheet was filed in the year 2024 against her husband and investigation was kept open but she was arrested on 21^st June, 2024 in connection with Infocity P.S. Case No.368 of 2023 corresponding to C.T. Case No.1340 of 2023 registered under Sections 419 , 420, 467. 468, 471 and 120-B read with 34 IPC and while was in custody, she was taken on remand on 27^th June, 2024 and produced before the OPID Court, Cuttack and thereafter, a supplementary chargesheet dated 19^th September, 2024 was filed against her for the alleged offences. In course of enquiry, the petitioner moved the application under Section 262 BNSS corresponding to Section 239 Cr.P.C. before the learned Special Judge, OPID Court, Cuttack demanding her discharge on the ground that the charges levelled against her to be groundless and there is no prima facie material to presume that she has committed the offences. But such a plea was rejected vide Annexure-1.

4. The impugned or