The court emphasized favoring civil remedies over criminal allegations in disputes, provided conditions of pre-arrest bail are met.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER

2 06-02-2026 Heard Mr. Jai Prakash Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Mithlesh Kumar Khare, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection with Sahebganj P.S. Case No. 240 of 2024 registered for the offence(s) punishable under Sections 420 ,467,468,471,120(B)

of the Indian Penal Code .

3. Allegation is that taking advantage of the unsound health of the brother of the informant, the accused persons in an organized manner got a piece of land appertaining to khata No.92, Khesra No.1335 executed in their name for a total consideration amount of Rs.6 lacs and subsequent to that on the pretext of necessary correction in the sale deed, another sale deed was executed by the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submitted that no fraud has been committed in view of the fact that informant and his brother had voluntarily accepted the consideration amount and had executed the sale deed. However, on instruction, learned counsel submitted that to buy peace of mind, petitioners again want to settle the dispute amicably outside the Court.

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 petitioners, on instructions, submitted that the petitioners have agreed to appear before the learned District Court at 10:30 A.M.

on 26.02.2026.

7. Heard the parties

8. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, as well as, I have also perused the allegation made in the FIR from which, it appears that there is a dispute between the parties and in such circumstances, 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

3