The court emphasizes the distinction between civil and criminal disputes and encourages mediation for resolving civil matters cloaked in criminal allegations.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER

5 18-12-2025 Heard Mr. Mohammad Akhter Hussain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Brajendra Nath Pandey, learned APP for the State and Mr. Md. Ataul Haque, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Morkahi P.S. Case No. 53 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code .

3. Respective counsels are of the opinion that the matter primarily relates to monetary transaction between the parties and allegation against the petitioner took a total of Rs17,86,000/- from the informant between 2020–2021 for supplying iron and metal goods but he neither supplied the goods nor returned the said money. It is further alleged that two cheques issued by the petitioner were dishonoured by the bank. Petitioner has denied the same and claims that the cheques, which were issued by him, were given only as security in a settled business transaction and were misused despite the account being closed as NPA.

4. Both the parties have referred to the materials/evidences which have surfaced in course of investigation, but they admit that the nature of allegation is civil in nature. They have arrived to inform this Court that they will try to settle the dispute amicably outside the Court and jointly informs that they will appear before the learned District Court at

10.30 AM on 13.01.2026.

5. Law in this regard is well settled by the Apex Court in the case of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2013) 11 SCC 673 , in which, the Apex Court in paragraph no. 12 has held as follows:

"12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court."

6. The Apex Court has reiterated the aforesaid proposition in recent judgment of S. N. Vijayalakshmi & Ors. vrs. The State of Karnataka and Anr. reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 1575

7. The Apex Court while considering the content of ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No. 3114 of 2024 after discussing the earlier law laid down in several cases, has observed in paragraphs nos. 35, 36 and 37, inter alia as follows:

Difference between criminal breach of trust and cheating

35. This Court in its decision in S.W.

Palanitkar v. State of Bihar S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar , (2002) 1 SCC 241 expounded the difference in the ingredients required for constituting of an offence of criminal breach of trust ( Section 406 IPC) vis-à-vis the offence of cheating ( Section 420 ). The relevant observations read as under :

“9. The ingredients in order to constitute a criminal breach of trust are : (i) entrusting a person with property or with any dominion over property; (ii) that person entrusted : (a) dishonestly misappropriating or converting that property to his own use; or (b) dishonestly using or disposing of that property or wilfully suffering any