How Many Times Do We Need To Remind HCs What Constitutes Cheating, Asks SC

Last Updated:July 21, 2025, 16:36 IST

The SC bench said, "We are quite disturbed by the manner in which the High Court has passed the impugned order."

The SC emphasised the High Court may either allow the petition saying that no offence is disclosed or may reject the petition saying that no case for quashing is made out. (PTI File)

The Supreme Court recently expressed anguish by asking as to how many times do the High Courts need to be reminded of the constituents of the offence of cheating. The SC said that there has to be something more than prima facie on record to indicate that the intention of the accused was to cheat the complainant right from the inception.

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan took a strong exception to an Allahabad High Court’s order of March 7, which directed petitioner Shailesh Kumar Singh alias Shailesh R Singh, who sought quashing of a First Information Report (FIR), to go for mediation and simultaneously also ordered him to hand over a demand draft of Rs 25,00,000 for the purpose of mediation to the original complainant.

Holding that the plain reading of the FIR does not disclose any element of criminality, the bench said, “We are quite disturbed by the manner in which the High Court has passed the impugned order."

The court noted the High Court first directed the appellant to pay Rs 25,00,000 to the respondent No.4 and thereafter directed him to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre for the purpose of settlement.

“That’s not what is expected of a High Court to do in a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution or a miscellaneous application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR or any other criminal proceedings," the bench said.

“What is expected of the High Court is to look into the averments and the allegations levelled in the FIR along with the other material on record, if any," the bench added.

“The High Court seems to have forgotten the well-settled principles as enunciated in the decision of this Court in the “State of Haryana & Others vs. Bhajan Lal & Others" reported in 1992," the bench said.

In its order, the court pointed out, it called upon the counsel appearing for the respondent no.4 to make it understand in what manner the FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence.

“We also called upon the counsel to make us understand in what manner his client could be said to have been cheated so as to constitute the offence of cheating. What we have been able to understand is that there is an oral agreement between the parties," the bench said.

The respondent No.4 might have parted with some money in accordance with the oral agreement and it may be that the appellant – herein owes a particular amount to be paid to the respondent No.4. However, the question is whether prima facie any offence of cheating could be said to have been committed by the appellant, the bench asked.

Having gone through the facts of the matter, the bench pointed out, the entire case is squarely covered by a recent pronouncement of this Court in the case of “Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh" reported in (2024). In the said decision, the entire law as to what constitutes cheating and criminal breach of trust respectively has been exhaustively explained.

The court noted, it appears that this very decision was relied upon by the counsel appearing for the petitioner before the High Court.

“However, instead of looking into the matter on its own merits, the High Court thought fit to direct the petitioner to go for mediation and that too by making payment of Rs 25,00,000 to the 4th respondent as a condition precedent," the bench said.

“We fail to understand, why the High Court should undertake such exercise," the bench asked.

The court emphasised the High Court may either allow the petition saying that no offence is disclosed or may reject the petition saying that no case for quashing is made out.

“Why should the High Court make an attempt to help the complainant to recover the amount due and payable by the accused. It is for the Civil Court or Commercial Court as the case may be to look into in a suit that may be filed for recovery of money or in any other proceedings, be it under the Arbitration Act, 1996 or under the provisions of the IB Code, 2016," the bench said.

The court asked as to why the High Court was not able to understand that the entire dispute between the parties is of a civil nature.

The bench said it also enquired with the counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 whether his client has filed any civil suit or has initiated any other proceedings for recovery of the money.

“It appears that no civil suit has been filed for recovery of money till this date. Money cannot be recovered, more particularly, in a civil dispute between the parties by filing a First Information Report and seeking the help of the Police. This amounts to abuse of process of law," the bench underscored.

The court said it could have said many things but it refrained from observing anything further. “If the respondent No.4 has to recover a particular amount, he may file a civil suit or seek any other appropriate remedy available to him in law. He cannot be permitted to take recourse of criminal proceedings," the court held.

The court quashed the impugned FIR and clarified that it shall be open for the respondent No.4 to avail appropriate legal remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law for the recovery of the alleged amount due and payable to him.

The First Information Report was registered on January 09 under Sections 60(b), 316(2) and 318(2) of B.N.S., 2023, with P.S. Hariparwat, District Agra. The petitioner submitted that he is a co-founder and production head of M/s Karma Media and Entertainment LLP, which is primarily engaged in production of motion picture. The respondent no.4 (informant) is running the business under the name and style of M/s Polaroid Media, which is engaged in the business of financing, coproduction and co-financing media projects. He claimed the informant has lodged the impugned FIR by dragging a civil dispute inter-se the parties into criminal case.

Sanya Talwar

Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked previousl...Read More

Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked previousl...

Read More

Location :

First Published:

News india How Many Times Do We Need To Remind HCs What Constitutes Cheating, Asks SC