The court mandated mediation in cases where civil disputes might cloak criminal offenses, emphasizing amicable resolutions over prolonging litigation.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER

4 17-01-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Patna Kotwali P.S. Case No. 140 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code .

3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 01.03.2024, the informant, Akash Kumar, claiming to be the Personal Secretary of a MLC submitted a handwritten information before the SHO, Kotwali Police Station, Patna, alleging therein that a “Swabhiman Samaroh” was scheduled to be organized on 28.01.2024 on the occasion of the death anniversary of Maharana Pratap, for which arrangements for serving meals to participants from across the State were made at 22/M, Strand Road, and for the said purpose an amount of ₹3,00,000/- was paid in advance to the accused/petitioner, Shashi Shekhar; however, due to unavoidable circumstances the programme was cancelled and despite being duly informed and requested to refund the amount, the accused allegedly avoided receiving calls and, when a person was sent to collect the money, not only refused to return the same but also behaved aggressively, leading the informant to seek police intervention, on the basis of which Patna Kotwali P.S. Case No. 140 of 2024 came to be registered.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the case. He further submits that the matter primarily relates to monetary transaction between the parties and for amicable settlement of dispute between the parties outside the Court, the matter be referred for mediation.

5. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submitted that a chance be given to the parties for amicable settlement outside the court.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner has agreed to appear before the learned District Court at 10:30 A.M.

on 17.02.2026.

7. Heard the parties

8. Having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegation made in the FIR, I am of the opinion that an opportunity is required to be given to the parties to settle their score amicably outside the Court.

9. In this regard, I find it apt to take note of the observation made by the Apex Court in 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."

(emphasis supplied)

10. 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

11. 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