Pre-arrest bail can be granted to allow parties to seek mediation in cases involving civil disputes cloaked as criminal offenses.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER

4 21-01-2026 Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Danapur P.S. Case No. 187 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406 , 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code .

3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that the petitioner, who works as a manager in the hospital of the informant, had allegedly committed financial irregularity and had not deposited Rs. 39 lakh in the bank account of the informant. Thereafter, the informant had checked the salary account of the petitioner and had found that Rs. 22 Lakh has been deposited in the salary account of the petitioner.

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. However, at this stage, 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 19.02.2026 for resolving the dispute by way of mediation .

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 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 require