Court emphasized the necessity of mediation for resolving civil disputes disguised as criminal offences, highlighting the court's cautious approach in using jurisdiction under Section 482.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER

4 30-01-2026 Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners; Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant and Mr.

Nirmal Kumar Sinha, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 747(C) of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code .

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Satendra Prasad Singh, filed a written complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, alleging that in connection with a contract work, a sum of ₹5,83,500/- was paid in cash to the accused persons, which was to be refunded. It is further alleged that for the purpose of furnishing a performance guarantee, an amount of ₹7,00,000/- was paid, out of which ₹3,00,000/- was transferred on 16.09.2017 and another ₹3,00,000/- on 05.10.2017 into two different bank accounts of the accused persons. It is further alleged that an unregistered agreement dated 06.03.2018 was executed between the complainant and the accused persons regarding payment of the contract amount to the complainant and authorizing him to operate the accuseds' bank account, which was not accepted by the bank. Subsequently, on 12.03.2018, a registered Power of Attorney was executed by the accused in favour of the complainant for operation of the said bank account. The complainant further alleged that despite investing a substantial amount in the construction work, the accused did not take interest in the work and failed to hand over the amount of ₹4,09,000/- paid by the department to the accused. Repeated demands were allegedly made by the complainant, including on 21.12.2018, and a legal notice dated 01.02.2019 was also issued, but the accused failed to return the money.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and they have 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.

6. However, at this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, on instructions, 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 .

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 Co