HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.209 of 2011 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 01.12.2010 in SR.No.9119 of 2010 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B.Nagar, wherein the said complaint filed by the petitioner herein under Section 200 Cr.P.C. alleging offences, under Sections 420 and 506 read with 34 IPC, was dismissed, holding that the ingredients of the offences are not prima facie attracted. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the records. According the petitioner-complainant, he was appointed as a sole distributor for distribution of products by the respondents and, having believed the respondents, parted with a sum of Rs.3.00 lakhs, but, however, the respondents did not supply the material and started sale of the goods through some others. The complainant has not filed any documents nor produced any material before the Court, along with the complaint, to show that he was appointed as a sole distributor and that he paid Rs.3.00 lakhs to the respondents in that connection. The complainant has not filed any documents evidencing any such contract between himself and the respondents. The sworn statement of the complainant also does not refer to any such contract. Except making a bald allegation that he has parted with Rs.3.00 lakhs on the assurance of the respondents that goods would be supplied to him and that they failed to supply the goods as promised, there is no material to show that the respondents made any such promise nor the complainant paid them any amount of Rs.3.00 lakhs. Even otherwise, assuming that there, in fact, was any such contract between the complainant and the respondents, the alleged conduct of the respondents would only amount to breach of terms and conditions of the contract and nothing more. It is well settled that breach of terms and conditions of a contract does not lead to inference of cheating unless there has been mala fide intention on the part of the accused at the inception itself to cheat the complainant. In the present case, it is not the allegation of the complainant either in the complaint or in the sworn statement that, even at the inception, that the respondents were having any evil intention to cheat the complainant and with that intention only, they made a false promise and collected an amount of Rs.3.00 lakhs. The ingredients of the alleged offences, under Sections 420 and 506 IPC, are not at all attracted even prima facie to the facts of the present case. As per the averments in the complaint and also the sworn statement of the complainant, it is purely a civil dispute arising out of breach of contract between the parties and initiation of criminal proceedings for settling such a dispute is clearly an abuse of process of law. The trial Court, by the impugned order, has rightly refused to take cognizance or to refer the same to the Station House Officer for investigation. The impugned order, therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J Date:11.07.2011 Usd