ORDER : G. S. AHLUWALIA, J. 1. This application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashment of Crime No.115/2023 registered at Police Station Inderganj, District Gwalior (M.P.) for the offence under Section 420, 34 of IPC and all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR. 2. It is submitted by counsel for applicants that on the basis of complaint made by respondent No.2, the police has registered FIR in Crime No.115/2023 at Police Station Inderganj, District Gwalior. The crux of the FIR is that applicants as well as respondent no.2 entered into an agreement to sell and accordingly an amount of Rs.14 lacs was also paid but now applicants are not executing sale-deed. It was further alleged that now it has come to the notice of respondent No.2 that applicants do not want to execute the sale-deed. It is submitted by counsel for applicants that even if the entire allegations made in the FIR are considered on their face value, then it is predominantly of civil in nature and therefore conversion of this case into a criminal case is unwarranted and bad in law. 3. Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for respondent no.2 that the applicants after having received an amount of Rs.14 lacs entered into an agreement to sell and it was decided that remaining amount of Rs.08 lacs would be paid at the time of execution of sale deed but now the intention of the applicants has become dishonest and they are not executing the sale deed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. The primary question for consideration is as to whether the allegations made against the applicants make out a prima facie case under Section 420 of IPC or not? 6. It is well established principle of law that in order to bring the act within the purview of Section 420 of IPC, it has to be prima facie shown that the intention of the accused right from very inception was to cheat the complainant. A mere breach of contract would not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating. 7. The Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Ghai & Others Vs. The State of West Bengal & Others reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305 has held as under:- 7. A mere breach of contract would not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating. 7. The Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Ghai & Others Vs. The State of West Bengal & Others reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305 has held as under:- 7. Predominantly, the Indian Judiciary has time and again reiterated that forum shopping take several hues and shades but the concept of ‘forum shopping’ has not been rendered an exclusive definition in any Indian statute. Forum shopping as per Merriam Webster dictionary is:- “The practice of choosing the court in which to bring an action from among those courts that could properly exercise jurisdiction based on determination of which court is likely to provide the most favourable outcome” 8. The Indian judiciary’s observation and obiter dicta has aided in streamlining the concept of forum shopping in the Indian legal system. This Court has condemned the practice of forum shopping by litigants and termed it as an abuse of law and also deciphered different categories of forum shopping. 9. A two-Judge bench of this Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Cipla Ltd. & Anr. (2017) 5 SCC 262 has laid down factors which lead to the practice of forum shopping or choice of forum by the litigants which are as follows:- “148. A classic example of forum shopping is when litigant approaches one Court for relief but does not get the desired relief and then approaches another Court for the same relief. This occurred in Rajiv Bhatia Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others, (1999) 8 SCC 525 . The respondent-mother of a young child had filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Rajasthan High Court and apparently did not get the required relief from that Court. She then filed a petition in the Delhi High Court also for a writ of habeas corpus and obtained the necessary relief. Notwithstanding this, this Court did not interfere with the order passed by the Delhi High Court for the reason 8 that this Court ascertained the views of the child and found that she did not want to even talk to her adoptive parents and therefore the custody of the child granted by the Delhi High Court to the respondentmother was not interfered with. The decision of this Court is on its own facts, even though it is a classic case of forum shopping. 149. In Arathi Bandi v. Bandi Jagadrakshaka Rao & Ors. (2013) 15 SCC 790 this Court noted that jurisdiction in a Court is not attracted by the operation or creation of fortuitous circumstances. In that case, circumstances were created by one of the parties to the dispute to confer jurisdiction on a particular High Court. This was frowned upon by this Court by observing that to allow the assumption of jurisdiction in created circumstances would only result in encouraging forum shopping. 150. Another case of creating circumstances for the purposes of forum shopping was World Tanker Carrier Corporation v. SNP Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. and others, (1998) 5 SCC 310 wherein it was observed that the respondent/plaintiff had made a deliberate attempt to bring the cause of action namely a collision between two vessels on the high seas within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. Bringing one of the vessels to Bombay in order to confer jurisdiction on the Bombay High Court had the character of forum shopping rather than anything else. 151. Another form of forum shopping is taking advantage of a view held by a particular High Court in contrast to a different view held by another High Court. In Ambica Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise (2007) 6 SCC 769 the assesse was from Lucknow. It challenged an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the CESTAT) located in Delhi before the Delhi High Court. The CESTAT had jurisdiction over the States of Uttar Pradesh, NCT of Delhi and Maharashtra. The Delhi High Court did not entertain the proceedings initiated by the assessee for want of territorial jurisdiction. Dismissing the assessee’s appeal this Court gave the example of an assessee affected by an assessment order in Bombay invoking the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court to take advantage of the law laid down by the Delhi High Court or an assessee affected by an order of assessment made at Bombay invoking the jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court to take advantage of the law laid down by it and consequently evade the law laid down by the Bombay High Court. It was said that this could not be allowed and circumstances such as this would lead to some sort of judicial anarchy. It was said that this could not be allowed and circumstances such as this would lead to some sort of judicial anarchy. 155. The decisions referred to clearly lay down the principle that the court is required to adopt a functional test vis-à-vis the litigation and the litigant. What has to be seen is whether there is any functional similarity in the proceedings between one court and another or whether there is some sort of subterfuge on the part of a litigant. It is this functional test that will determine whether a litigant is indulging in forum shopping or not.” 10. Forum shopping has been termed as disreputable practice by the courts and has no sanction and paramountcy in law. In spite of this Court condemning the practice of forum shopping, Respondent No. 2 filed two complaints i.e., a complaint u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C before the Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi on 06.06.2012 and a complaint which was eventually registered as FIR No. 168 u/s 406, 420, 120B IPC before PS Bowbazar, Calcutta on 28.03.2013. ie., one in Delhi and one complaint in Kolkata. The Complaint filed in Kolkata was a reproduction of the complaint filed in Delhi except with the change of place occurrence in order to create a jurisdiction. 11. A two-Judge bench of this Court in Krishna Lal Chawla & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (2021) 5 SCC 435 observed that multiple complaints by the same party against the same accused in respect of the same incident is impermissible. It held that Permitting multiple complaints by the same party in respect of the same incident, whether it involves a cognizable or private complaint offence, will lead to the accused being entangled in numerous criminal proceedings. As such he would be forced to keep surrendering his liberty and precious time before the police and the courts, as and when required in each case. 12. The legality of the second FIR was extensively discussed by this Court in T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 181 . It was held that there can be no second FIR where the information concerns the same cognisable offence alleged in the first FIR or the same occurrence or incident which gives rise to one or more cognizable offences. State of Kerala & Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 181 . It was held that there can be no second FIR where the information concerns the same cognisable offence alleged in the first FIR or the same occurrence or incident which gives rise to one or more cognizable offences. It was further held that once an FIR postulated by the provisions of Section 154 of Cr.P.C has been recorded, any information received after the commencement of investigation cannot form the basis of a second FIR as doing so would fail to comport with the scheme of the Cr.P.C. The Court further held that barring situations in which a countercase is filed, a fresh investigation or a second FIR on the basis of the same or connected cognizable offence would constitute an "abuse of the statutory power of investigation" and may be a fit case for the exercise of power either under Section 482 of Cr.P.C or Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India 13. A two-Judge bench of this Court in K. Jayaram and Ors. Vs. Bangalore Development Authority & Ors. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1194 observed: “16. It is necessary for us to state here that in order to check multiplicity of proceedings pertaining to the same subject-matter and more importantly to stop the menace of soliciting inconsistent orders through different judicial forums by suppressing material facts either by remaining silent or by making misleading statements in the pleadings in order to escape the liability of making a false statement, we are of the view that the parties have to disclose the details of all legal proceedings and litigations either past or present concerning any part of the subject-matter of dispute which is within their knowledge. In case, according to the parties to the dispute, no legal proceedings or 10 court litigations was or is pending, they have to mandatorily state so in their pleadings in order to resolve the dispute between the parties in accordance with law.” 14. The genesis of the present appeal originates from the impugned order pronounced by the High Court whereby the High Court dismissed the application filed under Section 482 as well as 401 Cr.P.C. Taking that into concern, it is necessary to advert to the principles settled by judicial pronouncements laying down the circumstances under which High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 15. This Court in the widely celebrated judgment of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335considered in detail the scope of the High Court powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the FIR and referred to several judicial precedents and held that the High Court should not embark upon an inquiry into the merits and demerits of the allegations and quash the proceedings without allowing the investigating agency to complete its task. At the same time, this Court identified the following cases in which FIR/complaint can be quashed: “102. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the 21 proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 16. This Court in R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, (1960) 3 SCR 388 summarized categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings:- (i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction; (ii) Where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) Where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. 17. This Court in Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. (2007) 12 SCC 1 observed:- “27. The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy; more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage” 18. In Indian Oil Corpn. v NEPC India Ltd. & Ors., (2006) 6 SCC 736 a two-judge Bench of this Court reviewed the precedents on the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and formulated guiding principles in the following terms: “12. In Indian Oil Corpn. v NEPC India Ltd. & Ors., (2006) 6 SCC 736 a two-judge Bench of this Court reviewed the precedents on the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and formulated guiding principles in the following terms: “12. … (i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint. (ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. (iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution. (iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. (v) ..” 19. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Ors. (2004) 1 SCC 691 made the following observation :- “11. The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. In proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code.” 20. This Court in G. Sagar Suri & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Ors. (2000) 2 SCC 636 observed that it is the duty and obligation of the criminal court to exercise a great deal of caution in issuing the process, particularly when matters are essentially of civil nature. 21. This Court has time and again cautioned about converting purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This Court in Indian Oil Corporation (Supra) noticed the 13 prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. The Court further observed that:- “13. …any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged.” 34. There can be no doubt that a mere breach of contract is not in itself a criminal offence and gives rise to the civil liability of damages. The Court further observed that:- “13. …any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged.” 34. There can be no doubt that a mere breach of contract is not in itself a criminal offence and gives rise to the civil liability of damages. However, as held by this court in Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2000) 4 SCC 168 , the distinction between mere breach of contract and cheating, which is criminal offence, is a fine one. While breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating, fraudulent or dishonest intention is the basis of the offence of cheating. In the case at hand, complaint filed by the Respondent No. 2 does not disclose dishonest or fraudulent intention of the appellants. 36. Having gone through the complaint/FIR and even the chargesheet, it cannot be said that the averments in the FIR and the allegations in the complaint against the appellant constitute an offence under Section 405 & 420 IPC, 1860. Even in a case where allegations are made in regard to failure on the part of the accused to keep his 17 promise, in the absence of a culpable intention at the time of making promise being absent, no offence under Section 420 IPC can be said to have been made out. In the instant case, there is no material to indicate that Appellants had any malafide intention against the Respondent which is clearly deductible from the MOU dated 20.08.2009 arrived between the parties." 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Radheshyam and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and another decided on 22.07.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.3020/2024 has held that breach of contract does not call for any criminal action. A civil wrong cannot be given criminal colour merely to coerce the applicant into registering the sale. The judicial process cannot be used as a tool to enforce specific performance of agreement. 9. Thus, it is clear that mere breach of contract would not give rise to criminal prosecution and there is nothing on record to suggest that fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of the applicants was there from very inception of the contract. The criminal law cannot be utilized for getting the specific performance of contract. 10. 9. Thus, it is clear that mere breach of contract would not give rise to criminal prosecution and there is nothing on record to suggest that fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of the applicants was there from very inception of the contract. The criminal law cannot be utilized for getting the specific performance of contract. 10. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that even if the entire allegations made in the FIR are taken on their face value, still matter is predominantly of civil in nature and respondent No.2 has a remedy of filing a civil suit for specific performance of contract. 11. Accordingly, the FIR in Crime No.115/2023 registered at Police Station Inderganj, District Gwalior (M.P.) for the offence under Section 420, 34 IPC is hereby quashed with liberty to respondent No.2 that if so advised, he can take recourse to civil law for redressal of his grievance. 12. The application is allowed.