On a critical analysis of the definition of 'cheating' as given in Section 415 of the Penal Code, it appears that the ingredients required to con­stitute the offence of 'cheating' are as follows: "(i) There should be fraudulent or dishon­est inducement of a person by deceiving him; (ii) (a) the person so deceive should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to con­sent that any person shall retain any property; or (b) the person so deceived should be intention­ally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (iii) in cases covered by (ii) (b), the act or omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the per­son induced in body, mind, reputation or prop­erty.(Ram Das Vs. State of UP AIR 1974 SC 1811). ... In the decision in the case of Mahbubul Alam Gazi alias Mahbub Alam Vs. State, reported in 8 BLT 358 = 5 BLC 380, referred to by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, it has been held: "In order to constitute the offence of cheat­ing, it must be established that someone is made to part with some property on the promise or representation of the accused to return some­thing in lieu thereof, which the latter had no intention to give. The initial intention to deceive must be established to justify a conviction for cheating. Intention of cheating shall have to be gathered from the facts of the case and its sur­rounding circumstances. Where there is no fraudulent intention of the accused from the beginning, there can be no question of cheating. In the absence ofmens rea, mere breach of con­tract cannot constitute cheating. Inability to fulfill a promise or contract does not amount to cheating." 

(64 DLR (HCD) (2012) 146)