JUDGMENT P.N. Prakash, J. 1. This petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondent police to register FIR dated 12.03.2015 against (1) PEPSICO India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Sudha Centre, New No.31, Old No.19, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Madras – 4 and its personnel, i.e., (2) Mahesh, General Manager, (3) Perumal, Area Sales Manager and (4) Stephen Raj, marketing Executive. (1) for causing life threat to Thirumalai, proprietor of Sri Lakshmi Agencies and for threatening to cause damage to the properties of the petitioner; (2) for obtaining signatures in the petitioner's letter-head at the threat point; (3) for compelling the petitioner to market the contaminated and adulterated soft drinks of PEPSICO India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., (4) For cheating to the tune of Fifty Lakhs 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police. 3. This court carefully perused the complaint dated 12.03.2015 supposed to have been given by the petitioner to the respondent police. On a reading of the complaint, it appears that the petitioner is the Proprietor of M/s.Lakshmi Agencies and was given distributorship by PEPSICO for distributing the products of the company in and around Sholinghur. 4. It is alleged by the complaint that the petitioner entered into a distribution agreement with PEPSICO on 05.05.2014 and after entering into the agreement, he claims that he had invested Rs.50 lakhs for providing infrastructure etc., by borrowing Rs.20 lakhs from Bank. It is the allegation of the petitioner that PEPSICO has awarded the distribution arrangement of their products to a third party namely V.R.V.Agencies, Padmapuram Village, Sholinghur area and on account of this, the petitioner's business had slumped. The petitioner has made allegations that representatives of PEPSICO are forcing the petitioner to sell contaminated products, for which the petitioner did not agree. 5. On a complete reading of the complaint, it essentially appears that the petitioner had grievance against PEPSICO for giving distribution rights to another person and on account of that, the petitioner has invented allegations of adulteration in order to give a criminal colour, to an otherwise civil dispute. Therefore, the complaint does not disclose a cognizable offence warranting an investigation by the police. 6. This Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.