The Supreme Court on Thursday quashed criminal proceedings under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against a film producer, holding that dishonour of a post-dated cheque by itself does not establish dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction. The Court clarified that every breach of a commercial promise or failure to generate expected returns cannot be converted into a criminal offence of cheating.
A bench comprising Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra allowed the appeal filed by V. Ganesan against the Madras High Court order dated 06.04.2023 in Crl.O.P. No. 847 of 2021. The High Court had partly allowed the quashing petition by setting aside the charge under Section 406 IPC (criminal breach of trust) but had refused to quash the indictment under Section 420 IPC (cheating).
The prosecution case, as per the final report in C.C. No. 3569 of 2020 before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, was that the appellant was producing a movie and had sought funds from the de-facto complainant on the assurance of sharing 30% profits on the first investment and later 47% on additional funds. When the project faced a shortfall, the appellant issued two post-dated cheques of ₹24 lakh each towards return of the principal amount. These cheques were dishonoured for want of funds, leading to allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust.
The appellant approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC contending that the dispute was purely civil in nature and the criminal proceedings amounted to abuse of process. While the High Court quashed the charge under Section 406 IPC for lack of entrustment, it declined to quash the proceedings under Section 420 IPC, holding that prima facie inducement and misrepresentation were made out.
Setting aside the High Court’s order to the extent it declined quashing under Section 420 IPC, the Supreme Court reiterated the settled ingredients of cheating as explained in Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola Inc. (2011) 1 SCC 74 and Vesa Holdings Private Limited v. State of Kerala (2015) 8 SCC 293. The Court emphasised that dishonest or fraudulent intention must exist at the time of making the promise or representation. Mere subsequent failure to fulfil the promise cannot be the sole basis to infer dishonest intention from the beginning.
Justice Manoj Misra, authoring the judgment, observed that movie production is inherently a high-risk business and no one can guarantee profits. Since the film was admittedly completed and released, there was no false promise regarding the making of the movie. The initial agreement was to share profits, and there were no allegations that the movie actually earned profits. The post-dated cheques were issued not as inducement to obtain fresh funds but to discharge an existing obligation after the de-facto complainant objected to the release of the movie.
The Court categorically held:
“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… 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 the nature of the transaction involved inherent commercial risk. Where fulfilment of the promise is not entirely within the control of the promisor, the High Court can examine whether dishonest intention existed from the very beginning and, if not, quash the proceedings to prevent abuse of process.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court quashed the entire criminal proceedings under Section 420 IPC, observing that the allegations disclosed only a civil cause of action arising out of a failed commercial venture. The appellant was relegated to civil remedies, if any.
Cause Title: V. Ganesan v. State Rep. by The Sub Inspector of Police & Anr.| Criminal Appeal No. 1470 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10478 of 2023) | 2026 INSC 265
Click HERE for full Judgment
Lawcutor 