ORDER M. Wahajuddin, J. - The opposite parties were summoned under S. 420, Indian Penal Code on a private complaint filed by Chhotey Singh applicant. The revisional Court vide its judgment and order dated 29-1-1981 has set aside that order and has discharged the opposite parties. Feeling aggrieved the complainant has preferred this application under S. 482. Cr. P. C. The learned revisional Court entertained the revision on the authority of Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 2185 . This is also the view taken in Madhu Limaye's case, AIR 1978 SC 47 . So there is no error on that score. 2. The law is well settled that the dishonest intention to cheat should exist from the very inception. The case of State of Kerala v. A.P. Pillai, AIR 1973 SC 326 is an authority on the point. In the present case, such an intention did not exist at the very inception. Actually what transpired was that a dunlop cart belonging to Imrat Singh was stolen and Chhotey Singh, complainant, was suspected of the theft. Panchayats were held. Chhotey Singh was called upon to deposit Rs. 800/- pending finding of the Panchayat. Later, the Panchayat found that Chhotey Singh is not guilty of theft, but instead of refunding the money to Chhotey Singh then, as would have been the correct legal step, by spin of coin the disposal of the money was made. This may be incorrect from the angle of civil liability and there may be a civil action for the same, but by no stretch of imagination any mens rea can be attributed to the persons involved in the matter, nor can it be held that the intention of the opposite parties was from the very inception to cheat. The revisional Court has, thus, taken a sound view. This application under S. 482, Cr. P. C., has no 9mol force and it is rejected.