Facts: The appellant was a film producer who borrowed funds from the second respondent (de facto complainant) for a movie project. The initial agreement promised a 30% share in profits, which was later increased to 47% following a second tranche of investment. When the movie faced funding issues, the appellant gave an undertaking to return the principal amount and a share of profits, or interest if no profits were generated. To facilitate the movie's release after the complainant raised objections, the appellant issued two post-dated cheques of Rs. 24 lakhs each. These cheques were subsequently dishonored for insufficient funds. The complainant alleged that the appellant had committed criminal breach of trust and cheating.Procedural Posture: The appellant approached the High Court of Madras under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the final report. The High Court quashed the charge under Section 406 of the IPC but allowed the proceedings under Section 420 of the IPC to continue, holding that the question of intent should be decided at trial. The appellant then challenged this refusal to quash the cheating charge before the Supreme Court.Issue: Whether the dishonour of post-dated cheques issued in a high-risk commercial transaction, such as film production, can prima facie constitute the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC in the absence of evidence of dishonest intention at the inception.Holding: No, the conviction or continuation of proceedings cannot be sustained. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and quashed the remaining criminal proceedings.Reasoning: The Court reasoned that for an offence of cheating, a "fraudulent or dishonest intention" must exist at the time the promise was made. Mere failure to keep a promise later does not satisfy the requirements of Section 415 of the IPC. The Court noted that film-making is a "high-risk business" where profit is not guaranteed; thus, failure to pay profit-shares does not imply initial deception. Furthermore, post-dated cheques are issued to discharge existing or future liabilities and do not carry a representation of sufficient funds at the time of issuance. Since the movie was actually produced and released, the promise was not false at the inception. The dispute was essentially a civil breach of contract given a criminal color.