Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Cause of Action in Cheating - Main Points and Insights
Crucial Element: Criminal Intention at the Time of Inducement The core requirement for establishing cheating is that the accused must have had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the false or misleading representation. This is emphasized across multiple sources, which state that for cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time of making false or misleading representation i.e. since inception ["V. R. Venugopal VS T. Pankajam - Andhra Pradesh"], ["SRI B K SANJAY KRISHNAMURTHY vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY - Karnataka"], ["Siddharth Sethia & Ors. vs The State of West Bengal & Anr. - Calcutta"], ["B. Veera Venkata Prasad vs State of Telangana - Telangana"]. The subsequent conduct of the accused may be considered, but it cannot solely determine the existence of cheating unless the fraudulent intent is established from the outset.
Distinction Between Civil Breach and Criminal Offense Mere breach of contract or failure to perform contractual obligations does not constitute cheating unless accompanied by fraudulent intent from the beginning. For example, mere breach of contract cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right from the beginning ["Vivek Agarwalla VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"], ["Shri V Mahesh vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"]. This underscores that a long period of non-performance alone does not automatically imply cheating unless fraudulent intent was present at the time of the initial transaction.
Time Frame and Limitation of Cause of Action Many references highlight that the cause of action for cheating is time-bound, with specific periods prescribed by law. For instance, if the period prescribed in clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 has not expired, there is no commission of an offence nor accrual of cause of action ["Shatrughan Chiraniya, son of Late Moti Lal Chiraniya VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"]. Additionally, actions initiated after the expiry of limitation periods are deemed barred, and the cause of action must relate to acts done within that timeframe.
Legal Misuse and False Claims Cases also indicate that initiating criminal proceedings after a long delay, especially when the alleged act was known earlier, can be considered misuse of power or malicious prosecution ["MR C GOPALAN vs STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka"], ["SELVATHURAI v. SOMASUNDERAM"]. Proper cause of action requires some act done by the accused that leads to the alleged damage or harm, and merely alleging fraud without evidence of fraudulent intent at the relevant time is insufficient.
Analysis and Conclusion
Understanding the cause of action in long-term cheating cases hinges on establishing that the fraudulent or dishonest intention existed at the inception of the transaction. The law consistently emphasizes that fraudulent or dishonest intention must be shown at the time of making the promise or representation ["SRI B K SANJAY KRISHNAMURTHY vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY - Karnataka"], and subsequent conduct alone cannot prove cheating. Additionally, the cause of action must arise within the statutory limitation period, and allegations made after significant delays are often viewed skeptically or as an attempt to misuse legal processes. Therefore, for a long period of alleged cheating, proving the initial fraudulent intent is essential, and mere failure to perform contractual obligations over time does not automatically constitute a criminal offence unless such intent is demonstrated from the outset.
References:["Samarendra Kumar Biswas VS State of West Bengal - Calcutta"]["V. R. Venugopal VS T. Pankajam - Andhra Pradesh"]["SRI B K SANJAY KRISHNAMURTHY vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY - Karnataka"]["Siddharth Sethia & Ors. vs The State of West Bengal & Anr. - Calcutta"]["Vivek Agarwalla VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"]["Shri V Mahesh vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"]["B. Veera Venkata Prasad vs State of Telangana - Telangana"]["SELVATHURAI v. SOMASUNDERAM"]["Shatrughan Chiraniya, son of Late Moti Lal Chiraniya VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"]
In the realm of criminal law, particularly under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 415, 417, and 420, allegations of cheating often arise in prolonged business dealings, relationships, or transactions. But when does the cause of action truly begin, especially if the alleged cheating unfolds over years? Many individuals grapple with questions like: how to understand cause of action in cheating for long period of time? This is crucial because misunderstanding it can lead to dismissed complaints, quashed proceedings, or prolonged civil disputes mislabeled as criminal.
This post breaks down the legal principles, drawing from key judicial precedents. Note that this is general information based on case law and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
The cause of action in cheating isn't defined by a single statute but emerges from the offence's completion. Under IPC Section 415, cheating involves fraudulent or dishonest inducement causing delivery of property or harm. Courts emphasize that the offence completes at the initial inducement, requiring dishonest intention (mens rea) from the very beginning.
As held in one ruling: To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. From his mere failure to keep up promise subsequently such a culpable intention right at the beginning... cannot be presumed. S. W. Palanitkar VS State of Bihar - 2001 8 Supreme 216Hridaya Ranjan Pd. Verma VS State Of Bihar - 2000 3 Supreme 13
Mere subsequent non-fulfillment or breach doesn't suffice—it's typically a civil matter unless initial deceit is proven. This distinguishes cheating from contract breaches or criminal breach of trust, where entrustment alone may trigger liability. For instance, For cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time of making a false or misleading representation i.e. since inception. In criminal breach of trust, mere proof of entrustment is sufficient. B. Veera Venkata Prasad vs The State of Telangana - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 56126
In long-term cases—like multi-year supply contracts, soured partnerships, or extended relationships—the cause accrues at the point of initial fraudulent inducement, not later lapses. Courts repeatedly quash proceedings where claims arise years later without proving upfront mens rea.
Consider a prolonged business tie: Alleged offence of cheating could not have been committed after lapse of long time—Continuance of criminal prosecution would amount to abuse of process. Gulf Oil Corporation Limited VS State Of Jharkhand And S. N. Ghosh - 2008 0 Supreme(Jhk) 644 In a cheque bounce linked to long-term supply, Cheque bounce in long-term supply contract not cheating without initial dishonest intention; dispute essentially civil. Veer Prakash Sharma VS Anil Kumar Agarwal - 2007 5 Supreme 771
Similarly, in relationships: Long-term love affairs/relationships—no cheating cause without initial deception or false promise in bad faith from start; consensual acts not vitiated later. Moutushi Dey D/o Late Santosh Kumar Dey vs State of Assam - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 1194Guluk Kathar S/o Sri Bhadreswar Kathar VS State of Assam - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 306
The timeline is key: Even if harm is realized later, the offence ties to inception. One case clarifies: The cause of action for offence of cheating arises only when the person so deceived realize that he has been cheated. B. N. Hotels Private Limited, Rajendra Kumar Gupta VS State of Jharkhand, Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia - 2012 Supreme(Jhk) 777 However, this realization doesn't create a new cause if initial intent is absent.
Magistrates and High Courts apply a prima facie test under CrPC Sections 200/203 for process issuance and Section 482 for quashing. Allegations must disclose offence ingredients on their face.
Prima facie case for process under CrPC 200/203... No dishonest intention from the beginning alleged... no offence made out. S. W. Palanitkar VS State of Bihar - 2001 8 Supreme 216 If it's a mere breach: Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning. Hridaya Ranjan Pd. Verma VS State Of Bihar - 2000 3 Supreme 13Veer Prakash Sharma VS Anil Kumar Agarwal - 2007 5 Supreme 771
Jurisdiction under CrPC 177 links to the offence place, e.g., cheque issuance or dishonour site. Veer Prakash Sharma VS Anil Kumar Agarwal - 2007 5 Supreme 771Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod VS State of Maharashtra - 2014 5 Supreme 641
Cheating often overlaps with cheque bounces under Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) Section 138. Here, the offence completes on dishonour, but prosecution cause arises post-notice failure—and only once. NI 138 cause arises only once post-notice; re-presentation gives fresh right, not new cause; forfeits right after first notice. Sadanandan Bhadran VS Madhavan Sunil Kumar - 1998 7 Supreme 20Prem Chand Vijay Kumar VS Yash Pal Singh - 2005 3 Supreme 706Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod VS State of Maharashtra - 2014 5 Supreme 641
This reinforces: No successive causes from repeated failures in long-term dealings.
Rarely, courts recognize a continuous cause, like ongoing service fraud: Fraud/cheating in insurance policy (misuse of funds, incorrect details)—continuous cause of action for complaint due to ongoing deficiency. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd. VS Jagdish Prakas Lada - Consumer (2018)
In civil contexts, alleging fraud to extend limitation is scrutinized: Thus, the cause of action, as mentioned in the plaint, is an illusory and appears to have been a well-planned action... by alleging bald allegations of fraud and cheating. Shantilal Shankarbhai Patel Since Deceased VS Patel Dalsukhbhai Nanabhai (Deceased) - 2023 Supreme(Guj) 282
Other cases highlight delays' irrelevance without initial deceit. Prolonged investigations or custodies don't alter accrual: One fails to understand how cases of 2015 and 2018 are still pending investigation after passage of such a long time. Mohd Imam @ Imamuddin VS State NCT Of Delhi - 2022 Supreme(Del) 925
In development agreements, failure to deliver after parting with funds may sustain if deception proven at start. B. N. Hotels Private Limited, Rajendra Kumar Gupta VS State of Jharkhand, Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia - 2012 Supreme(Jhk) 777 But clever drafting to invoke fraud post-limitation fails. Shantilal Shankarbhai Patel Since Deceased VS Patel Dalsukhbhai Nanabhai (Deceased) - 2023 Supreme(Guj) 282
In long-term cheating allegations, the cause of action hinges on proving dishonest intent from the transaction's outset, not subsequent events. This prevents abuse while protecting genuine victims. As patterns show, prolonged spans often signal civil remedies over criminal ones. Gulf Oil Corporation Limited VS State Of Jharkhand And S. N. Ghosh - 2008 0 Supreme(Jhk) 644Veer Prakash Sharma VS Anil Kumar Agarwal - 2007 5 Supreme 771
Disclaimer: This article synthesizes judicial trends for educational purposes. Laws evolve, and outcomes depend on facts. Always seek professional legal counsel tailored to your case.
References (Key Documents):1. Gulf Oil Corporation Limited VS State Of Jharkhand And S. N. Ghosh - 2008 0 Supreme(Jhk) 644 - Long-term lapse bars offence.2. Veer Prakash Sharma VS Anil Kumar Agarwal - 2007 5 Supreme 771 - Contract/cheque cheating.3. S. W. Palanitkar VS State of Bihar - 2001 8 Supreme 216 - Mens rea at promise.4. Hridaya Ranjan Pd. Verma VS State Of Bihar - 2000 3 Supreme 13 - Intention gist.5. Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod VS State of Maharashtra - 2014 5 Supreme 641 - NI 138 analogy.6. Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd. VS Jagdish Prakas Lada - Consumer (2018) - Continuous exception.
#IPCCheating, #CauseOfAction, #LegalIndia
Therefore in terms of the MOU itself, the same terminates after the specified period of time. ... In absence of the same, any criminal cause of action is only a non-est factum in the eye of law. In the case of Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. Vs. Biological E. ... As a result of which the stipulated action of sale of property as well as collection of the sell proceeds could not be completed in terms of the agreement within the stipulated period that is April 20, 2013 or any extended ....
Loss, however, is not a necessary element of the offence of cheating. There must be an intention to cause wrongful loss or wrongful gain but it is not essential that loss should be caused. "the above observation did not go to decide that case. ... A cheats, but if A, at the time of obtaining the money, intends to deliver the indigo plant and afterwards breaks his, contract and does not deliver it, he does not cheat, hut is liable only to a civil action for breach of, contract". ... Stating that he would marry me he spoil....
A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. ... However, post-Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. ... State of Uttar Pradesh, (2024) 10 SCC 690 observed that there is a distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating. For cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time of making false or misleading representation i.e. since i....
A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. ... However, post-Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. ... State of Uttar Pradesh, (2024) 10 SCC 690 observed that there is a distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating. For cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time of making false or misleading representation i.e. since i....
A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. ... It is high time that the police officers across the country are imparted proper training in law so as to understand the fine distinction between the offence of cheating viz-a-viz criminal breach of trust. Both offences are independent and distinct. ... For cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time#HL_E....
not constitute the cause of action for filing the suit." ... Thus, the cause of action, as mentioned in the plaint, is an illusory and appears to have been a well-planned action in order to bring the suit challenging the registered sale deeds dated 19.10.2002 and 08.02.2006 by alleging bald allegations of fraud and cheating. ... It is averred in the plaint that for the first time, the plaintiffs came to know from the Office of the Collector on 3.01.2012, that the N.A ....
It was not established that such entering up of payment had caused or was likely to cause damage to the complainant. ! ... Otherwise it is difficult to understand why the charge was not amended under section 172. There is no doubt the words of section 171, with its illustrations, are very comprehensive and designed to ensure that technicalities shall not impede the due and efficient Where in a charge of cheating, the manner of cheating set out in the charge did not in law constitute the offence, the charge would....
It is high time that the police officers across the country are imparted proper training in law so as to understand the fine distinction between the offence of cheating vis-à-vis criminal breach of trust. Both offences are independent and distinct. ... For cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time of making a false or misleading representation i.e. since inception. In criminal breach of trust, mere proof of entrustment is sufficient. ... In case of cheating, the intention o....
It is high time that the police officers across the country are imparted proper training in law so as to understand the fine distinction between the offence of cheating vis-a-vis criminal breach of trust. Both offences are independent and distinct. ... For cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time of making a false or misleading representation i.e. since inception. In criminal breach of trust, mere proof of entrustment is sufficient. ... In case of cheating, the intention o....
The learned District Judge held that there was reasonable and probable cause for instituting the charge and dismissed the plaintiff's action. R. L. Pereira, K.C. (with Subramaniam), for plaintiff, appellant.- The facts proved do not disclose the offence of cheating. ... - This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover damages from the defendant for having on November 2, 1927, falsely and maliciously and without any reasonable and probable cause brought a charge of cheating a....
One fails to understand how cases of 2015 and 2018 are still pending investigation after passage of such a long time.
This Court fails to understand how the son of the petitioner who is working as a Rifleman could have evaded the process of law for such a long period of time. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances disclosed, this Court is of the view that the criminal proceeding initiated pursuant to the aforesaid FIR Case No. 157(10)2011 under Section 498-A/304-B/306/34-IPC of Lamphel Police Station, require to be monitored by the appropriate authority till it reaches its logical conclusion, for which this Court directs the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur to monitor the ....
(ii) (2012) LLR 22 (Group 4 Securitas Guarding Ltd. vs. Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal & ors), wherein the High Court of Delhi held that There is no explanation whatsoever for this delay from the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. There is nothing to show how this case remained unattended for such a long time and how it suddenly came to surface except the plea that no period of limitation being provided in the law, action may be taken at any time". "a separate PF Code number is for direct compliance of the provisions of the Act and it is allotted only to the....
The cause of action for offence of cheating arises only when the person so deceived realize that he has been cheated. It was known fact that the project for which development agreement was executed between the parties was not likely to be completed without getting financial assistance from Bank and hence had the complainant knew that the petitioners would not stand to their promise, he would not have parted with any amount.
The learned trial Court is directed to dispose of the same on merits as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of six months. One fails to understand as to how an application for maintenance remained pending for such a long time.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
