As per case facts, an FIR was lodged against the Petitioner for allegedly failing to supply the full order of computer sets after receiving an advance payment from SIMFED. The ... Petitioner supplied only a portion and did not refund the remaining advance or penal interest despite a legal notice, leading to charges under Sections 420 and 409 IPC. The Petitioner argued that the matter was civil in nature, involving breach of contract, and therefore the FIR should be quashed as it was meant to harass him, lacking a criminal bearing. The question arose whether the case, involving non-supply of goods and non-refund of advance after a contract, constituted a civil breach of contract or a criminal offense of cheating and criminal breach of trust, warranting the quashing of the FIR under Section 482 CrPC. Finally, the Supreme Court, referencing the distinction between breach of contract and criminal cheating, found no grounds to hold that the FIR failed to reveal a *prima facie* case against the Petitioner. Consequently, the High Court declined to exercise its discretion under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR, rejecting the petition. However, it clarified that the trial court should independently determine the charge based on submissions and documents, without being prejudiced by this order.