IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5101 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1297 Year-2023 Thana- MUNGER COMPLAINT CASE District- Munger ======================================================

Pran Ranjan Ram @ Pran Ranjan Raj S/O Late Banarsi Ram Resident of Village - Nawada, P.O.- Tilakpur, P.S.- Sultanganj, District- Bhagalpur,Bihar-

813213 ... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Yatharth Anand S/O Gauri Sankar Resident of Village Mangarh, P.S.

Dharahra, P.O. Mangardh, Dist-Munger.

... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Bishweshwar Ram, APP.

For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Surya Narayan Sah, Advocate.

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER

2 17-02-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the complainant.

2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 1297(c) of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the allegation made in the F.I.R., complainant is said to have paid Rs.8,00,000/- to the petitioner for providing job in Railways, but neither the complainant was provided with job nor the amount paid to the petitioner was returned to him.

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 and learned counsel for the complainant submitted that a chance be given to the parties for amicable settlement outside the court.

6. 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 27.02.2026.

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 complaint, 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