The Supreme Court has quashed cheating charges against a film producer, ruling that a movie's failure to generate returns cannot be treated as a criminal offence, as investments in film production are inherently subject to commercial risk.
A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra was hearing a criminal appeal by filmmaker V Ganesan, who had challenged a Madras High Court order that allowed cheating charges under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code to continue against him. The case arose from a financial dispute with an investor who had funded the production of a film.
According to the case record, the investor had paid around Rs 48 lakh to the producer between 2013 and 2014. In return, he was promised a share in the film's profits, initially 30% and later increased to 47%. However, the film failed to generate expected revenue after its release.
Following the losses, the producer issued two post-dated cheques to repay the investment. Both cheques were dishonoured due to insufficient funds, leading the investor to initiate criminal proceedings alleging cheating and breach of trust.
The Supreme Court set aside the cheating charge, observing that the agreement between the parties was based on profit-sharing, which inherently carries financial uncertainty. It noted that the film was completed and released, which indicated that the producer had not made a false promise at the outset.
“In such commercial transactions, failure to generate profit or repay the amount cannot, by itself, be construed as an act of cheating,” the court said, stressing that criminal liability requires proof of dishonest intent from the very beginning.
The bench emphasised that a charge of cheating requires proof of dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time of making the promise. A mere failure to fulfil a promise or repay money later, without such intent, does not constitute a criminal offence.
“Dishonour of a post-dated cheque by itself is not sufficient to presume dishonest intention,” the bench clarified.
Also Read: Delhi Excise Case: CBI Files Caveats In Supreme Court As Kejriwal Challenges HC Orders
It further clarified that the dishonour of post-dated cheques may attract proceedings under financial laws, but cannot automatically be treated as evidence of cheating unless deception from the beginning is established.
Describing the dispute as “purely civil in nature”, the court quashed the criminal proceedings and cautioned against the growing tendency to use criminal law to settle business disputes or recover investments.
Essential Business Intelligence, Continuous LIVE TV, Sharp Market Insights, Practical Personal Finance Advice and Latest Stories — On NDTV Profit.