1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 471 OF 2007 R.P. Gupta ... Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Parvez Memon i/b Majeed Memon for Applicant. Mr. S.S. Pednekar, APP for the Respondent No.1. Mr. Akshay Patil with Mr. Faisal Sayyed i/b M/s M.K. Ambalal & Co. for Respondents No. 2 to 5. CORAM: A.S. OKA, J. DATE: 24TH APRIL, 2009. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant original complainant. The applicant filed a private complaint against the 2nd to 5th respondents alleging commission of various offences punishable under section 405, 406, 415, 417, 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 The case of the applicant in short is that the 2nd to 5th respondents induced the applicant to invest in imported copper winding machines by assuring to give contracts in future. The allegation is that the said respondents have cheated the applicant by purchasing the machines from local market and have thereby caused loss to the applicant. Hence, the applicant filed private complaint against the said respondents. The 2 learned Magistrate passed an order of issue process for the offence punishable under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The order of issuing process was set aside in a Revision by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 3 The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the Sessions Court ought not to have interfered with the order of the learned Magistrate, as the case of cheating was made out by the applicant. He submitted that without giving an opportunity of leading evidence, the complaint could not have been thrown out. 4 Perusal of the complaint shows that the grievance of the applicant is essentially of a breach of alleged contract committed by the accused. Perusal of the complaint shows that the case of existence of an intention to deceive right from the inception as well as case of dishonest inducement is not at all made out. Therefore, learned Judge was justified in interfering with the order of the issuing process. There is no reason to disturb the impugned order. 5 Application is rejected. JUDGE,