Order : FARJAND ALI, J. 1. The instant Criminal Misc. Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR bearing No.0013/2023 dated 13.01.2023 registered at Police Station Ganga Shahar, District Bikaner for the offence under Sections 420, 120-B, 467, 468, 470 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The FIR alleges that the petitioners, along with others, had entered into an agreement to sell agricultural land to the complainant. The agreement stipulated that the petitioners would arrange for the sale deed to be executed by the original landowners within a specified time-frame. The complainant had paid an advance amount of Rs.75,00,000/- to the petitioners towards the purchase price. However, despite repeated demands, the petitioners failed to fulfill their obligations under the agreement and refused to return the advance amount. The complainant further alleged that the petitioners had forged documents and cheated him by making false representations. 3. The petitioners contended that the FIR is wholly misconceived and has been lodged with mala fide intentions to harass them. They argued that the dispute is essentially of a civil in nature arising from a failed transaction in relation to land and that there is no evidence to support the criminal allegations of fraud, forgery, and cheating. The petitioners asserted that they are ready and willing to fulfill their obligations under the agreement and that the complainant has resorted to criminal proceedings to exert undue pressure. They further argued that the complainant has approached the Court with unclean hands and has already initiated civil proceedings regarding the same matter. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through order under assail as well as the other relevant material as made available to this Court. 5. This Court has meticulously examined the contents of the FIR lodged against the petitioners and the relevant materials presented. The FIR lodged by the complainant details a complex transaction involving an agreement for the sale of agricultural land. The petitioners, along with others, allegedly entered into an agreement with the complainant, receiving an advance payment of Rs.75,00,000/-. The complainant alleges that despite repeated demands, the petitioners failed to arrange for the execution of the sale deed by the original landowners, thus breaching the agreement. The complainant further accuses the petitioners of forgery and making false representations to induce the payment. 6. The complainant alleges that despite repeated demands, the petitioners failed to arrange for the execution of the sale deed by the original landowners, thus breaching the agreement. The complainant further accuses the petitioners of forgery and making false representations to induce the payment. 6. The petitioners argued that the dispute is civil in nature, arising from a breach of contract, and that the complainant should have pursued civil remedies such as a suit for specific performance. The Supreme Court, in plethora of judgments, has emphasized that civil disputes should not be given a criminal flavor unless there is clear evidence of criminal intent from the inception of the agreement. In this case, the primary contention is a failure to fulfill contractual obligations, which prima facie appears to be a civil matter. 7. Section 415 IPC, which defines cheating, requires dishonest intention from the outset, leading to wrongful gain or loss. Illustration (g) of Section 415 IPC elucidates that mere failure to perform a promise, without initial intent to deceive, does not amount to cheating. Here, the complainant’s allegations do not sufficiently establish that the petitioners had a dishonest intention at the time of entering into the agreement. A subsequent inability to fulfill the contractual terms does not per se constitute an offence of cheating. This case appears to fall squarely within the ambit of Ilustration (g) of Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which states: “A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to deliver to Z a certain quantity of indigo plant which he does not intend to deliver, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to advance money upon the faith of such delivery. A cheats; but if A, at the time of obtaining the money, intends to deliver the indigo plant, and afterwards breaks his contract and does not deliver it, he does not cheat, but is liable only to a civil action for breach of contract.” This illustration highlights that a mere breach of contract, even if deliberate, does not necessarily constitute cheating under Section 415 IPC, which is a crucial element for establishing an offence under Section 420 IPC. Simple defrauding does not amount to cheating; there must be an element of dishonesty and deception. 8. Simple defrauding does not amount to cheating; there must be an element of dishonesty and deception. 8. To invoke the offence of Section 420 IPC (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), the prosecution must establish the essential elements of cheating as defined under Section 415 IPC. Section 415 IPC defines “cheating” as deceiving any person by any deception, with intent to defraud such person to deliver property. Mere defrauding, without the presence of dishonesty and an intention to deceive, does not constitute the offence of cheating. 9. Having meticulously examined the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court finds that the essential elements constituting the offences alleged in the FIR are conspicuously and manifestly absent. The allegations, upon scrutiny, do not reveal any evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Permitting the continuation of this FIR would not only be an unwarranted interference with the petitioners’ liberty but would also constitute a grave abuse of the judicial process. This Court cannot, in good conscience, allow such a miscarriage of justice to occur. 10. Sections 467, 468, and 470 IPC pertain to forgery and the use of forged documents for cheating. The FIR does not present substantial evidence indicating that the petitioners had forged documents or entered into a criminal conspiracy to deceive the complainant. Without clear evidence of forgery or the creation of false documents, the invocation of these Sections appears unjustified. 11. The continuation of the FIR would lead to unwarranted criminal proceedings against the petitioner, essentially for a matter that is civil in nature. The judicial process should not be misused to settle civil disputes, and the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Ors. V. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. ( AIR 1992 SC 604 ) has laid down that proceedings that are vexatious or do not disclose a prima facie case should be quashed. 12. In light of the above observations and the principles laid down in the Bhajan Lal (supra) case, this Court finds that the FIR does not disclose any cognizable offence and that its continuation would be a misuse of the legal process. 13. Accordingly, The Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed. FIR No. 0013/2023 dated 13.01.2023 and all proceedings arising therefrom are quashed and set aside. The SHO, Police Station Ganga Shahar, District Bikaner is directed to file the closure report in the Court concerned. 13. Accordingly, The Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed. FIR No. 0013/2023 dated 13.01.2023 and all proceedings arising therefrom are quashed and set aside. The SHO, Police Station Ganga Shahar, District Bikaner is directed to file the closure report in the Court concerned. However, nothing would preclude the parties to take proper steps in regard to breach of their civil liabilities. 14. The stay petition is disposed of accordingly.