Judgment :- The petitioners herein seek to further investigation in Crime No.2682 of 2004 on the file of the respondent police. 2. The relevant facts are as follows:- An agreement was entered into on 05.03.1996 between the defacto complainant and the first petitioner where under the defacto complainant was engaged for the purpose of putting up construction for the first petitioner at the rate of Rs.330/- per sq. ft. The defacto complainant had preferred a private complaint before the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai on 03.12.2004 informing that though he had completed the construction work, the petitioners have not made payment despite repeated demands; that the petitioners proposed to sell the built up house and misappropriate the proceeds for their wrongful gain, without paying the money to the complainant to which he is entitled to, and thus, the petitioners caused wrongful loss and cheated the defacto complainant which rendered them liable for prosecution for offences under Sections 406 and 420 r/w. 34 I.P.C. The said private complaint was referred for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and consequent thereto, a case in Crime No.2682 of 2004 has been registered on 10.12.2004 by the respondent police. 3. Mr.N.Manoharan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the agreement for construction was entered into between the defacto complainant and the first petitioner and the second petitioner, who is the son of the first petitioner had nothing to do with the transaction between the first petitioner and the complainant. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that owing to the complainant having left incomplete the work entrusted to him, the first petitioner had moved C.P.O.P.No.139 of 1997 before the District Munsif Court, Erode. Further, as against the action of the complainant and one another trying wrongfully to interfere with the first petitioners possession of the property wherein the construction was put up, the first petitioner had moved O.S.No.212 of 2002 before the First Additional District Munsif Court, Erode for permanent injunction and such suit was contested and eventually decreed in favour of the first petitioner herein on 08.11.2004. It is only thereafter, a private complaint was moved by the complainant on 03.12.2004. It is only thereafter, a private complaint was moved by the complainant on 03.12.2004. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the entire action against the petitioners is a malafide one and at most it could have given rise only to civil proceedings and that the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance the following decisions of the Honble Supreme Court:- (i) Hotline Teletubes and Components Ltd., and others Vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in (2005) 10 Supreme Court Cases 261. (ii) Uma Shankar Gopalika Vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in (2005) 10 Supreme Court Cases 336. (iii) Anil Mahajan Vs. Bhor Industries Ltd., and another reported in (2005)10 Supreme Court Cases 228. which are to the effect that mere breach of contract could not give rise to prosecution for offence of cheating. The Honble Supreme Court also has held that such a breach of contract would amount to cheating only if an intention to cheat was existing at the very inception and that continuation of investigation/prosecution in the absence thereof would amount to abuse of process of Court. 5. I have heard the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State. As the second respondent has neither appeared nor chosen to enter appearance through counsel despite service, this Court has been pleased to appoint Mr.K.Ramesh, learned counsel as Amicus Curiae, who also was heard. 6. The learned counsel appearing as Amicus Curiae submitted that the completed construction has been handed over to the petitioners herein and that sums remain unpaid by the petitioners and hence, the complainant has chosen to prefer the complaint. Such complaint was pending investigation and it would not be proper for this Court to interfere at this Stage. It is only on due investigation that the respondent police would be able to ascertain what was the offence committed by the petitioners and in the event of a charge sheet being filed against the petitioners, it always would be upon to them to urge the grounds presently raised before the Trial Court. 7. I have considered the rival submissions. 8. 7. I have considered the rival submissions. 8. As rightly contented by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners the complaint lodged by the second respondent makes no whisper of intention to cheat at the inception i.e., at the time of the agreement entered into between the first petitioner and the complainant. The second petitioner is not so much as a party to the agreement. The materials produced by the petitioners reveal that there is a dispute between the first petitioner and the complainant, the petitioners taking the stand that the complainant has left undone the job entrusted to him while it is the complainants case that he has not been paid for the work carried out by him. It is seen that the first petitioner had moved the consumer Forum at Erode seeking the relief on grounds of deficiency of service against the complainant. It is further seen that the first petitioner had filed a suit in O.S.No.212 of 2002 before the First Additional District Munsif Court, Erode seeking the relief of permanent injunction and such suit has been decreed in his favour after contest on 08.11.2004. This Court also finds the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the decisions of the Apex Court referred to supra to be quite appropriate. It is quite apparent that what existed between the parties is only a civil dispute and that the criminal process is sought to be abused towards mulcting pressure on the petitioners herein. Such abuse ought not to be permitted. It would be unjust to subject the petitioners to further harassment by way of investigation. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the investigation in Crime No.2682 of 2004 on the file of the respondent police shall stand quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 9. This Court places on record the appreciation for the assistance rendered by Mr.K.Ramesh, as Amicus Curiae. The Legal Services Authority is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- to the Amicus Curiae for his services.