The court emphasizes that civil disputes should not be criminalized when remedies are available through civil channels.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER

5 21-01-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Bypass P.S. Case No. 71 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 419 , 420, 467, 468 and 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code .

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant, Gunjan Kumar, lodged a written report before the Officer-in- Charge, Bypass Police Station alleging that on the advice of property dealers Sushil Prasad Mandal, Umesh Prasad Mandal and Pintu Kumar, he purchased land measuring 2 Kattha, part of Khesra No. 08, Khata No. 2, situated at Mouza Amnai, Thana No. 151, in the name of his wife Priyanka Kumari from Archana Sah, for which an agreement to sell dated 05.12.2022 was executed and a total sum of Rs. 32,00,000/- was paid by him, including Rs. 4,00,000/- by cheque, Rs. 10,00,000/- in cash and Rs. 18,00,000/- through RTGS to the account of Archana Sah, followed by execution of Kevala on 15.02.2023, mutation and construction of a boundary wall; however, subsequently he received a call from a person posing as an Anchal Karamchari informing him that the land had been purchased from a wrong person, whereafter the property dealers became untraceable, and upon visiting the house of Archana Sah, the informant allegedly realised that the said call was part of the same transaction, and thus the accused persons, in connivance with each other, cheated him and caused wrongful loss of Rs. 32,00,000/-.

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 counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposing the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail submitted that an opportunity may be given to the parties to resolve their dispute amicably outside the Court.

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

7. However, at this stage, learned counsel for the respective parties, on instruction, submitted that the parties have 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.

8. Heard the parties

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

10. 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,