Orissa High Court
Sonia Tripathy vs State Of Odisha …. Opposite Party on 23 February, 2026
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
AFR CRLREV No.421 of 2025
Sonia Tripathy .... Petitioner
Mr. Milan Kanungo, Senior Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. S.K. Swain, AGA
Mr. S.K. Sarangi, Senior Advocate for the Informant
CORAM:
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
DATE OF HEARING: 12.11.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:23.02.2026
1.
Instant revision under Section 442 BNSS corresponding to
401 Cr.P.C. is at behest of the petitioner challenging the
impugned order dated 11th 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 BNSS
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 IPC 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 23rd March, 2023.
Initially a written report was lodged at the Airfield P.S.
Page 1 of 22
Bhubaneswar on 9th 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
18th-23rd 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 19th 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 9th October, 2021 was
registered and as earlier stated, the investigation therein was
taken over by the EOW, Odisha, Bhubaneswar.
Page 2 of 22
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 27th
June, 2024 and produced before the OPID Court, Cuttack and
thereafter, a supplementary chargesheet dated 19th
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 order dated 11th July, 2025 denying her
discharge vide Annexure-1 is questioned by the petitioner on
the following grounds, such as, (i) the impugned order i.e.
Annexure-1 is contrary to law and weight of materials on
record; (ii) the agreements dated 9th December, 2019, the
copies of which were seized during investigation reveal about
loan for other business, whereas, the Bright Home Décor as
described by the informant in the FIR deals with interior
designing besides that there is nothing therein to justify that
the petitioner and her husband, while dealing with real estate
business, in order to find out a suitable piece of land and to
Page 3 of 22
help him in the construction of Villa and its designing that the
loan amount was to be adjusted for the said purpose or else
returned within a short time; (iii) even assuming for the sake
of argument that the allegations in the FIR to the effect that
the petitioner and her husband stopped showing the informant
any land for purchase and avoided repayment of the loan
amount, it would be preposterous to conceive as to why the
informant remain silent for about a year to set the law into
motion; (iv) a complaint under Section 138 NI Act was filed
in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar and prior to
that a legal notice dated 8th January, 2021 was issued to the
petitioner demanding certain amount and therein, it is
mentioned that on 9th December, 2019 towards 1st instalment
Rs.70 lac was given to her and furthermore, Rs.4,62,40,000/-
on 12th December, 2020 and out of that, Rs.40 lac was paid
back and that the same was adjusted towards the loan and that
apart, on 23rd December, 2019, the informant was paid Rs.33
lac and describing therein about agreement dated 9 th
December, 2019 and considering the notice in the complaint
in 1CC Case No.723 of 2021 as at Annexure-2 series, it has
to be said that the amount involved in the case has already
been paid back by the petitioner; (v) there is no material
received during investigation between January, 2024 and
September, 2024, when further investigation was in progress
after the filing of the chargesheet dated 7th January, 2024 so
as to implicate the petitioner particularly when similar
allegations were made in the chargesheet filed but still she
was not chargesheeted; (vi) by letter No.773 dated 9th March,
2024 of the IO looking after the investigation which is a part
Page 4 of 22
of the chargesheet addressed to the NCLT to provide
information regarding CP(IB) No.180/CB of 2020 which was
responded to supplying the orders passed therein and in MA
(IB)(CB) of 2023, it clearly established that a liquidation
order has been passed by the NCLT, Cuttack Bench,
whereafter, an Official Liquidator was appointed as required
under law and in that regard, fees were to be deposited by the
Financial Creditor, namely, informant, however, when such
deposit was not made by another order. the company was
dissolved, subsequent to which, an application for recall of
the same was moved, which was declined by the NCLT on
the ground of jurisdiction and suggested the Financial
Creditor to approach higher forum and the reason behind
bringing such fact to the notice of the Court is that the alleged
amount involved is a subject matter of challenge before the
NCLT which was instituted much prior to the lodging of the
complaint and also the FIR and therefore, even accepting the
allegation in its entirety, it can be said that a case of non-
payment of loan in time is made out and for that a criminal
prosecution is not to lie; (vii) the learned court below erred in
law for not considering the above aspects and the fact that on
the allegation of the informant regarding friendly loan
received by the petitioner and her husband and the mischief
committed by them failed to be substantiated by any other
instances with the examination of any land lord to show that
both of them had taken the informant and his wife to show
any land for their purchase; (viii) the informant with frivolous
and baseless allegations without any supporting materials,
lodged the report and since the foundational facts are absent,
Page 5 of 22
learned court below should have allowed the discharge, while
considering the application under Section 239 Cr.P.C.
corresponding to Section 262 BNSS, inasmuch as, no prima
facie case has been made out presuming that the petitioner
committed any such offence and hence, the charges are
totally groundless. But, as earlier stated, the learned court
below declined discharge of the petitioner vide Annexure-1.
The details of the transaction alleged have been considered
by the learned court below, however, ultimately the discharge
of the petitioner was refused on the premise that other
documents not forming a part of the chargesheet are not to be
referred to while considering such an application and that,
there is allegation which revealed involvement of the
petitioner and whether she did have any nexus or otherwise,
can only be ascertained after having a full-fledged trial.
5. Heard Mr. Kanungo, learned Senior Advocate for the
petitioner, Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State and Mr.
Sarangi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
informant.
6. In course of hearing, Mr. Kanungo, learned Senior
Advocate for the petitioner citated many case laws while
questioning the correctness of the impugned order as at
Annexure-1. One of the decisions in Gajanan Property
Dealer and Construction Pvt. Ltd. and others Vrs. State
of Orissa and another, 2018 SCC OnLine Ori 387 is relied
on by claiming that such other records which are relevant and
have not been disputed by the prosecution can be looked into
at the stage of framing of charge, while dealing with an
Page 6 of 22
application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. as exclusion of it
would be a travesty of justice. In the case at hand, the
petitioner relies on the documents connected to 1CC Case
No.723 of 2021 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M.,
Bhubaneswar as at Annexure-2 series and also the legal
notice received from the informant, the fact which has not
been refuted by the prosecution, hence, according to Mr.
Kanungo, learned Senior Advocate, it ought to have been
considered by the learned court below when brought to its
notice from side of the petitioner, while demanding discharge
for the alleged offence. Mr. Swain, learned AGA and Mr.
Sarangi, learned Senior Advocate for the informant submit
that the learned court below did not commit any wrong or
illegality in denying examination of all such records at the
stage of framing of charge.
7. According to the Court, for the purpose of trial, what is
needed is that a prima facie case is established and while
considering the same, a piecemeal trial is not to be held and
at the same time, no extraneous materials other than the
chargesheet and documents filed therewith are to be gone into
and examined, which may be received as a means of defence.
If the documents relating to the complaint and such other
materials, which are no part of the chargesheet, are accepted
and allowed to be examined during the stage of enquiry
before commencement of trial, it would lead to a mini-trial,
which is also not impermissible under law and therefore, it
has to be concluded that the learned court below did not
commit any wrong in not looking at such materials.
Page 7 of 22
8. In so far as factual aspects are concerned, as has been
pleaded by the petitioner with the claim that it ought to have
been taken cognizance by the learned court below, in the
considered view of the Court, could not have been enquired
into by learned court below before commencement of the
trial. When the chargesheet is filed and it is with a subjective
satisfaction by the police that a case is established, hence, to
go for trial or otherwise, a Court receiving the same, is to
examine the materials filed therewith to find out and ascertain
whether the alleged offences are prima facie made out. The
law is well settled that a detailed scrutiny or evaluation of
evidence is not to be considered at that stage. In fact, the
Apex Court in State of Rajasthan Vrs. Ashok Kumar
Kashyap (2021) 11 SCC 191 held and concluded that while
considering framing of charge or discharge, the Court is not
to evaluate the evidence or to conduct a mini-trial. In P.
Vijayan Vrs. State of Kerala and another (2010) 2 SCC
398, it has been emphasized that the Court dealing with the
enquiry should not weigh the evidence but only to check, if a
case exists for trial. In Amit Kapoor Vrs. Ramesh Chander
and another (2012) 9 SCC 460, the Apex Court concluded
that the Courts must look at the materials and it should not
turn the hearing on discharge into a trial. In Union of India
Vrs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & another, (1979) 3 SCC 4, it
has been highlighted upon that there is a limited scope of
enquiry at the stage of framing of charge. The purpose for an
enquiry before the trial begins is only to examine the
materials, once again after taking cognizance of the offences
at the initial stage, only to filter and eliminate cases, which
Page 8 of 22
are not fit for trial but that does not mean to hold a premature
trial with detailed scrutiny and evaluation of evidence, which
is not permissible. So therefore, any such ground pleaded by
the petitioner based on the documents or materials connected
to the complaint case or for that matter, with regard to any
such proceeding before the NCLT cannot be considered for
the purpose of discharge. Whether any such transaction is
independent of other allegations not connected to friendly
loan or otherwise is a matter to be thrashed out during trial. In
other words, the claim of the petitioner that it was merely a
loan and nothing to do with construction of a Villa and its
adjustment for such construction and interior designing of the
same and that amount received was returned with the
repayment revealed from the legal notice issued followed by
the complaint case filed shall have to be scrutinized during
trial and not at the stage of enquiry, where the scope is very
limited and no any exercise like a trial is allowed under law.
9. Section 262 BNSS corresponding to Section 239 Cr.P.C.
stipulates that if upon considering the police report and
documents sent therewith examined with a proper hearing
held providing the prosecution as well as defence an
opportunity of being heard and the Court considers the charge
to be groundless, it shall discharge the accused and record the
reasons for doing so. The object of discharge is to save the
accused from the ignominy of being tried in a criminal
prosecution where the charge against him is unfounded.
When the allegations are baseless or without foundation and
no prima facie case is made out, it shall have to result in
Page 9 of 22
discharge of the accused. The appreciation of evidence is an
exercise which is not to be taken up at the stage of
consideration of discharge. The veracity of allegations vis-à-
vis the materials filed along with the chargesheet and the
evidence proposed to be led during trial are not to be
meticulously scrutinized. The likelihood of the accused in
succeeding to establish is probable defence cannot either be a
ground for discharge.
10. In Amit Kapoor (supra), the Apex Court it is held that at
the initial stage of framing charge, the Court is not concerned
with the proof but only to consider that the accused has
committed an offence, which if put to trial, could prove his
guilt and all that is to be looked into is that the materials on
record and to conclude if the facts alleged are compatible
with the innocence of the accused and the final test of guilt is
not to be adjudged at that stage. Similarly, in State of
Madhya Pradesh Vrs. Mohanlal Soni (2000) 6 SCC 338, it
has been held that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court
has to prima facie consider, whether, there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused and that stage,
evidence is not to be appreciated so as to conclude, whether,
the same is sufficient to convict the accused. It has been
concluded therein that if the evidence which the prosecution
proposes to submit to prove the guilt of the accused even if
fully accepted before it is challenged during trial cannot show
that the accused committed a particular offence, in that case,
the charge shall have to be quashed. In A.R. Saravanan Vrs.
State through Inspector of Police, CB CID, Madurai 2003
Page 10 of 22
CriLJ 1140, the Apex Court held that under Section 239
Cr.P.C. it is the duty of the Court to consider whether there
is ground for presuming commission of offence or whether,
the charges to be groundless and only a prima facie case is to
be established without any meticulous examination of
evidence and the word ‘groundless’ employed therein means
there is no ground for presuming that the accused is guilty.
Considering the above case laws, it is to be concluded that
materials on record shall have to be subjected to limit
evaluation only for the purpose of considering whether
charge may be framed or the same is groundless and not
beyond. Any such endeavor to seriously examine the
truthfulness of the charges levelled with a conclusion as to
the guilt of the accused would be like encroaching upon a
territory, which is within the domain of trial.
11. Mr. Kanungo, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner
would submit that the offences are not made out and refers to
the allegation of cheating in the light of a friendly loan said to
have been given to the petitioner and therefore, the
submission is that the learned court below ought not to have
declined discharge. From the chargesheet, the Court finds
that the investigation revealed the informant and his wife had
agreements executed with the petitioner and her husband the
informant transferred the amount through RTGS. It has been
further revealed that the amount was paid and received for
the purpose of providing piece of land and construction of a
Villa at Bhubaneswar, which did not materialize due to the
conduct of the petitioner and her husband, who claims that
Page 11 of 22
such amount would be adjusted or refunded, a promise,
which was never honoured. It was unearthed in the
investigation that an amount of Rs.70 lac was credited to the
account of the petitioner and it was through multiple
transactions during the year 2019 and the account to which,
such transfers were made was opened in 2017 and closed in
2020 with no balance therein. From the very conduct of the
petitioner mala fide has been attributed and such is the
conclusion reached at the end of investigation for the reason
that the post-dated cheques for an amount of Rs.70 lac issued
by the petitioner could not be encashed by the informant as
the account of Bright Home Décor was closed with no
balance left therein. It has been found in such investigation
that the petitioner and her husband induced the informant and
his wife and deceived both in order to avail the loan and
cheated them. Whether, it was a pure and simple loan
transaction or for the conduct of the petitioner, a case of
cheating with dishonest intention harboured from the very
beginning is to be examined.
12. In Satishchandra Ratanlal Saha Vrs. State of Gujarat
and another (2019) 9 SCC 148, it has been held by the Apex
Court that it is the duty of the Court to apply its judicial mind
to the materials and to arrive at a conclusion that a prima
facie case has been made out since an order for framing of
charge is a serious concern to the accused as it affects his
liberty and therefore, the Courts are to be cautious for their
decisions at that stage may cause irreparable harm to him. It
is well settled law that an offence of cheating may be tried
Page 12 of 22
even when a particular transaction has been put to test in a
complaint case for an offence under Section 138 of the NI
Act provided there exists mens rea and it is made to suggest
that the accused did have such intention from the very
threshold. Mr. Kanungo, learned Senior Advocate for the
petitioner cited many other case laws but are not discussed
elaborately for the reason that the Court finds from the FIR
and the chargesheet with all other materials filed therewith
that a case is made out for trial. It has been the allegation of
the informant that he has been defrauded and the amount was
received only for expansion of the petitioner’s business in
Bright Home Décor and to return the same later on and/or to
adjust it in the Villa construction and interior designing of it.
The conduct of the petitioner is to be considered to find out
whether the intention was to pay back or to adjust the amount
in the construction of a Villa for the informant.
13. The Court is of the view that instead of discussing all the
case laws cited, it would be proper if the sum and substance
thereof is discussed and deliberated upon apart from the
citations which are really relevant to the case. The contention
of Mr. Kanungo, learned Senior Advocate is that it is a case
of default in repayment of friendly loan given to the
petitioner by the informant and therefore, there is no element
of any bad intention or mens rea and hence, the alleged
offences are not made out. The contention is that bad
intention must have to exist at the very inception when the
friendly loan was received by the informant with whatever
assurance or promise made. It is settled law that mere default
Page 13 of 22
in the repayment of a friendly loan does not automatically
constitute a case of cheating. Such defaults are generally
considered civil liabilities, rather, than criminal offences. An
offence under Section 318 BNSS corresponding to Section
420 IPC for cheating is made out only if it is proven that the
borrower had a dishonest or fraudulent intention at the very
beginning of the transaction itself. If a borrower receives a
loan with an honest intention to repay but fails to do so for
certain reasons like financial crisis or business loss or
unforeseen circumstances, it would not be a cheating. In the
instant case, the contention of Mr. Kanungo, learned Senior
Advocate is that no such intention ever existed at the time
when the alleged transaction took place and the friendly loan
was received and therefore, to claim that there is cheating
committed by her is not proper and justified.
14. According to the Court, in a case of friendly loan
simpliciter, in the event of default by the borrower, the
remedy lies in the recovery of the amount. In such a case, the
criminal law cannot be set into motion, which has been
repeatedly emphasized. The only way out is to recover the
debt by approaching a civil court. Furthermore, a criminal
prosecution cannot be used as a tool for the recovery. In the
case of the petitioner, as per the FIR, she said to have
received the amount from the informant for the reason stated
therein but it was not fulfilled. In such a situation, whether, it
would be right to allege the petitioner to have committed an
offence of cheating. A transaction leads to a criminal
consequence only if the following elements are shown to
Page 14 of 22
exist, such as, the receiver of the money never intended to
repay the loan or to fulfill the obligations arising out of a
transaction from the moment it was taken or promised, as the
case may be; or misrepresents using forged documents, fake
credential or false information; the borrower has the capacity
to pay back but deliberately on some pretext or other refuses
to do so; or diverts the same for other purposes; or disposes
of assets without the lender’s knowledge or commits such
other mischief which most certainly to frustrate the
fulfillment of the promise given at the time of transaction.
Unless there is clear, premeditated fraud or misrepresentation
at the time of taking the money for whatever purpose be it a
loan or otherwise, no criminal prosecution can be levied.
15. It has been consistently held and observed by the Apex
Court in a catena of decisions that for a case of cheating to be
made out, the ‘Inception Rule’ must have to be applied. Since
a case under Section 420 IPC read with 120-B IPC is
registered against the petitioner and her husband as made to
reveal from the record and it has led to the filing of the
chargesheet, a copy of which is at Annexure-1, it has to be
prima facie proved that apart from the accused husband, she
had no intention to ensure repayment of the money to the
informant from the beginning. Considering the essential
ingredients of the offence of cheating, what is more important
is the intent; if such intent is honest, it is merely a default in
repayment carrying a civil liability but where it is dishonest
from the start, the same invites a criminal action. A genuine
difficulty or inability to pay back is not cheating, which is,
Page 15 of 22
however, may be alleged, where the deception lies or such act
which is fraudulent to the very core. In case of financial
distress or partial payments, the conduct can be said to be not
dishonest and it becomes a case of default but where there is
false identity or the borrower vanishes immediately after
receiving the money or deliberately avoids repayments and
adopts unfair means to avoid payments or refund, it has to be
held as an intentional act of cheating. According to the Court,
the intention of a borrower is ascertained or measured only
from the conduct that he had indulged in cheating from the
inception. An innocent lender cannot assess the intention of
the borrower from day one but it is realized later looking at
the conduct, whereby, the conclusion may become that there
was no intention of repayment at all. It depends on facts and
circumstances of each particular case to consider any such
intention or otherwise either in a friendly loan or any other
transaction to determine the legal consequences to follow.
16. In Satish Chandra Ratanlal Saha (supra), the Apex
Court held and concluded that mere inability to return the
loan amount cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for
cheating. In Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and others
Vrs. State of Bihar and another (2000) 4 SCC 168, the
Apex Court ruled that the distinction between a breach of
contract and cheating depends on whether there was
fraudulent inducement and mens rea at the beginning. The
key ingredients of cheating are of false representation or
misleading acts and omission by the accused. The proof of
the accused intended to cheat from the start, not just a failure
Page 16 of 22
to perform later, is crucial and is proven by subsequent
actions. An act of inducement is nothing but deception of
lender to deliver the money or inter into a transaction with the
borrower. In other words, a simple default in repayment of
fulfilling the promise in terms of an agreement between the
parties without initially dishonest intent is not enough for
proving an act of cheating. A later fraudulent act may not
always be relevant to prove the intent to be dishonest from
the beginning. A dishonest intent must exist at the time of
inducement but in a given case, the intent of the borrower
may be verified after the transaction to ascertain, whether, it
was dishonest from the inception. In State of Bihar Vrs.
Ramesh Singh 1977 CriLJ 1606, it has been held by the
Apex Court that the distinction between a contract failing to
result in success and the fraudulent inducement to commit
cheating are clearly distinguishable. In Hridaya Ranjan
Prasad Verma (supra), it has been observed by the Apex
Court that inability to repay back cannot amount to a criminal
prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest
intention is shown right from the inception of the transaction
as mens rea is the crux of the offence. In the above decision,
the Apex Court also cautioned against criminalizing civil
disputes and observed that it could lead to dissonance with
the established legal principles, which clearly draw a line
between civil and criminal offences. A reference may be had
to the decision of the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vrs. State
of Punjab and another (2012) 10 SCC 303. Similarly, in
State of Kerala Vrs. A. Pareed Pillai and another 1972
CriLJ 1243, it is held that merely on the basis of a failure to
Page 17 of 22
keep up a promise subsequently, culpable intention right at
the beginning, when the promise is made cannot be
presumed. In a case, where the amount was not paid back due
to genuine causes, it was held that such default amounted to
breach of contract and not a criminal offence due to the
absence of dishonest intention as held by the Apex Court in
Hari Prasad Chamaria Vrs. Bishun Kumar Surekha and
others 1974 CriLJ 352. It is pertinent to note that deception
is essential and mere failure to honour a promise does not by
itself constitute the offence of cheating. The Courts have long
emphasized the distinction between civil and criminal wrongs
and they must not permit a person to be harassed even though
no case for taking cognizance of the offences has been made
out as held in GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust Vrs.
India Infoline Limited (2013) 4 SCC 505 and finally
concluding that if an alleged act gives right to a civil liability,
it cannot be dressed up as a criminal offence. In Satish
Chandra Ratanlal Saha (supra), it is also concluded by the
Apex Court that sometimes the facts of a case may seem to
be of a civil or commercial nature and in certain
circumstances, it may be coupled with ingredients of criminal
offence.
17. To sum up the above discussion, it is concluded that the
indicators of initial dishonest intention are about false
representation, when the accused claimed the money and it
has been received for a specific need but used for any other
purpose or to pay off other debts or transferring it to a third
party; misrepresentation in the ability to repay; concealment
Page 18 of 22
of material facts; bust-out behavior of the borrower etc. It has
to be held that inception is key that the accused did not have
the intent from the beginning of a transaction, whereas,
subsequent conduct plays a part. If explained further, while
an initial intent is crucial, subsequent behavior, such as,
immediately ignoring phone calls, fleeing or using the funds
for unintended purposes can be used to infer that the intention
was dishonest from the start and not just non-repayment.
18. To establish the offence of cheating, the following
ingredients are necessarily to be proved, namely, cheating;
dishonestly inducing the individual deceived to part with any
valuable; presence of mens rea on the part of the accused at
the time of such inducement; and false representation which
means the representation or portrayal made by the accused
was false, which means, something else was projected which
is untrue. In order to bring any case involving the offence of
cheating under Section 420 IPC it is not solely sufficient to
prove that a false representation has been made by the
accused but what is also necessary is to show that such
representation by the accused to be false was well within his
knowledge but deliberately misled the persons deceived. In
case of cheating, the responsibility rests on the prosecution to
show affirmatively that all the essential components of such
an act have been fulfilled. At the time of making any such
promise in acknowledgement and it is failed to be proved that
there was any further intention to it which is otherwise not
genuine, then criminality cannot be fastened. The only
remedy available in such a situation is to demand damages in
Page 19 of 22
a lawsuit for breach of contract. The concept attached to the
above reasoning is that there is a reasonable chance of
accused ever having the intent to carry out the promise but
subsequent failure to do so that might result from certain
circumstances, which he was unaware of at the time when, it
was proposed and not from any dishonest intent from the
very beginning.
19. At present, the Court is dealing with demand for
discharge from the alleged offences by the petitioner declined
by order dated 11th July, 2025 of the learned court below.
From the chargesheet, the Courf finds that the petitioner
received a loan with her husband from the informant for
expansion of business run by a firm, namely, Bright Home
Décor dealing with interior decoration and design based at
Bhubaneswar and to construct a Villa for the latter. The
transaction has taken place through RTGS and the amount
has been received in the account of the petitioner maintained
with Kotak Mahindra. In fact, the Court finds from the
materials on record that the parties entered into a loan
agreement and post-dated cheques were issued by the
borrower for returning the principal amount and also had
given the commitment in finalizing the land deal and also to
assist the informant in the construction of a Villa with interior
designing and accordingly, to adjust the loan amount. In the
investigation, it has been revealed that soon after receiving
the loan amount, no any genuine steps were taken by the
petitioner’s husband for arranging a land for the informant at
Bhubaneswar and to construct a Villa, rather, they stopped
Page 20 of 22
discussing the matter and when was approached there was an
assurance to pay back the amount but did not refund
thereafter. The further revelation made during the police
investigation is that the petitioner and her husband closed the
business of Bright Home Décor and even the account of firm
maintained with Axis Bank during the year 2020 in which the
loan amount was credited and since the bank account was
closed during the month of September of that year, post-dated
cheques dated 8th October, 2021 for an amount of Rs.70 lac
issued by the petitioner as proprietor of the business concern
could not be presented for encashment. The evidence
surfaced during investigation further transpired that the
accused husband identified himself as a businessman dealing
with real estate at Bhubaneswar and also given impression to
the informant that the petitioner’s wife proprietor of Bright
Home Décor is a successful interior designer dealing with
brands of international repute and accordingly, induced him
and wife by assuring them to arrange a plot and construction
of a Villa in Bhubaneswar and in that connection, received
the amount of Rs.70 lac. After having gone through the entire
of the materials on record and the manner in which the
petitioner conducted herself along with her accused husband,
it does not appear to be a case of simple loan repayment and
default but goes beyond and into the domain of mischief,
hence, a fit case for trial. Such is the prima facie view of the
Court after having examined the evidence for a limited
purpose to determine, whether, her claim of discharge is
justified. In the ultimate analysis, the conclusion of the Court
is that the impugned decision as per Annexure-1 of the
Page 21 of 22
learned Presiding Officer, Designated Court under the OPID
Act, Cuttack, Odisha in C.T. No.101(A) of 2023 does not
suffer any infirmity and therefore, the trial, which has already
commenced in the meantime, shall have to continue to reach
at its logical end and accordingly, it is ordered.
20. In the result, the revision petition stands dismissed.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Tudu
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU
Designation: Sr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC,CTC
Date: 25-Feb-2026 16:56:16
Page 22 of 22
