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

In a significant ruling clarifying the scope of cheating under the Indian Penal Code, the Supreme Court held that dishonour of a post-dated cheque, by itself, is not sufficient to presume dishonest intention on the part of the drawer. The Court emphasised that criminal liability for cheating requires proof of fraudulent intent at the inception of the transaction, and cannot be inferred merely from subsequent failure to fulfil a promise.

A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra allowed an appeal against a Madras High Court order which had refused to quash cheating charges under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

Background

The case arose from a financial arrangement relating to a film project. The appellant had sought funds from the complainant for producing a movie, promising a share in profits. The complainant initially invested money on the assurance of a 30% return, and later advanced additional funds on the promise of a higher share.

When the project failed to generate profits, the appellant issued two post-dated cheques of Rs. 24 lakh each towards repayment of the principal. These cheques were dishonoured due to insufficient funds, leading to allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust.

The police filed final report after investigation. The appellant approached the High Court seeking to quash the final report.

While the High Court quashed proceedings under Section 406 IPC (criminal breach of trust), it allowed prosecution under Section 420 IPC (cheating) to continue, holding that inducement and misrepresentation were prima facie made out.

Supreme Court's Analysis

Setting aside the High Court's order, the Supreme Court reiterated the settled position that for an offence of cheating, the dishonest or fraudulent intention must exist at the time of making the promise.

The Court relied on precedents including Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola Inc.(2011) 1 SCC 74, and Vesa Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2015) 8 SCC 293, observing that mere breach of contract or failure to keep a promise cannot automatically amount to cheating.

Importantly, the Court underscored that the nature of the underlying transaction must be considered. In the present case, the investment was made in a film project, which is inherently speculative and subject to risk.

“Movie making is a high-risk business. No one can be sure whether a movie would earn profits or would be a flop.”

Since the film was in fact completed and released, the Court found no basis to conclude that the initial promise itself was false or made with dishonest intent.

No cheating offence due to dishonour of post-dated cheque per se

Addressing the key issue, the Court drew a clear distinction between issuance of post-dated cheques and inducement to part with money.

It held that the post-dated cheques in the present case were issued not to induce the complainant to invest, but to discharge an existing liability. Therefore, their dishonour could not retrospectively establish dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction.

Crucially, the Court 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 existence of a dishonest intention on part of its drawer."

The Bench noted that post-dated cheques are often issued on the expectation that sufficient funds would be available on the due date. Their dishonour may give rise to proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, but does not automatically attract criminal liability for cheating.

The Court concluded that the dispute was essentially civil in nature, arising out of a failed commercial venture. It held that permitting criminal prosecution in such circumstances would amount to abuse of process.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings under Section 420 IPC, observing that the High Court had failed to appreciate the absence of dishonest intention from the outset.

Case : V Ganesan v State

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 269

Click here to read the judgment

For Petitioner: Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Senior Advocate, with Mr. M.P. Parthiban, AOR and arguing counsel, Mr. Ankur Prakash, Mrs. Priyanka Singh, Mr. Bilal Mansoor, Mr. Shreyas Kaushal, Mr. S. Geyolin Selvam and Mr. Alagiri K, Advocates.

For Respondents: Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, Senior Additional Advocate General and arguing counsel, with Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR, Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Ms. Azka Sheikh Kalia, Ms. Jahnavi Taneja and Mr. Danish Saifi, Advocates.