Judgment Intelligence
FIR QuashedIndroneel Goho v. Razouvonuo Thong & Anr.
2026 INSC 1115
Criminal Appeal No. 4637 of 2026 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10621 of 2025)
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 29 September 2026
- Bench
- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 417 and 420; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482
Final Outcome
Appeal allowed: the Gauhati High Court's judgment of 13.05.2025 was set aside and C.R. Case No. 17 of 2022 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dimapur, was quashed as against the appellant, leaving the complainant's civil remedies open (paras 12-13).
Key holdings
- Dishonest intention must exist at the inception; a later breach of contract is not enough (para 6).
- Signing as authorised signatory, with the money paid to the company, did not show personal dishonest intention (para 7).
- The complainant's prior knowledge of the bank mortgage undercut the alleged false representation (para 8).
- An arbitration clause does not bar prosecution, but the ingredients of the offence must still be disclosed (para 10).
- The complainant may still pursue her civil or contractual remedies (para 13).
Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
The appellant, CEO and authorised signatory of Darjeeling Organic Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd., signed an MoU dated 01.06.2021 with C.R. Traders, the first respondent's firm, concerning the Jamguri Tea Estate at Golaghat, Assam, and ₹40 lakh was paid into the company's account. The company terminated the MoU on 26.07.2021, alleging non-compliance. The first respondent then complained that she had been induced to pay by a false representation that the estate belonged to the company, when it was owned by another company and involved in proceedings with UCO Bank. The Dimapur Magistrate summoned the appellant, and the Gauhati High Court (Kohima Bench) refused to quash the case on 13.05.2025 (para 3).
Court's Findings
For cheating, the fraudulent or dishonest intention must exist at the inception of the transaction and must induce the parting of property; a later failure to perform a contract does not by itself support that inference, as reiterated in G. Saminathan (2026 INSC 772) (para 6). The MoU was between the complainant and the company, the appellant signed only as CEO and authorised signatory, the money went straight to the company, and there was no allegation that he received or appropriated any of it (para 7). The complainant knew before the MoU that the estate was mortgaged to UCO Bank, the MoU itself contemplated clearing the bank's dues, and the company was operating the estate, so a bare assertion of a knowingly false representation did not establish dishonest intention (para 8). Disputes over performance and termination carry civil consequences (para 9). An arbitration clause does not bar prosecution, but that does not answer whether the offence is disclosed (para 10). Continuing the case would give a predominantly contractual dispute the colour of a criminal prosecution and abuse the process of law (para 11).
Legal Principle
Cheating requires dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction. Where a company officer signs an agreement for the company, the money goes to the company and the complainant knew the relevant encumbrance, a bare assertion of a false representation does not make out Sections 417 and 420 IPC (paras 6-11).
Precedents Relied Upon
- G. Saminathan and Another v. State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police and Another 2026 INSC 772
For the offence of cheating, the complainant must show fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time the promise or representation was made.
