Sanjeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45927 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-181 Year-2022 Thana- GAYA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictGaya ====================================================== Sanjeet Kumar S/o Vijay Kumar @ Bijay Kumar R/O Village-Patel Nagar North, Islampur, PS-Islampur, Distt-Nalanda At present R/o MohallaSadabahar Colony, Gaya Rajauli Road, Bhusanda, P.S.- Muffasil, DistrictGaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Anuj Kumar Gupta S/O Krishna Kumar Gupta R/O Mohalla-Janakpur, POBuniyadganj, PS-MUffasil, Distt-Gaya ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Binod Murari Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rabindra Kumar, APP For O.P. No.2 :

Mr. Lokesh Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 21-01-2026 Heard Mr. Binod Murari Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Rabindra Kumar, learned APP for the State and Mr. Lokesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with complaint Case No. 181 of 2022 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of N.I. Act.

3. As per the allegations made in complaint, the informant entered into an agreement with the petitioner on 21.10.2021 for the sale of his Hyva vehicle for a total

2/5 consideration of Rs.8,60,000/-. The petitioner paid Rs.1,00,000/- in cash and Rs.1,00,000/- through cheque at the time of execution of the agreement. The petitioner further handed over two post-dated cheques to the complainant for amounts of Rs.3,10,000/- and Rs.3,50,000/-. However, upon presentation, both cheques were dishonoured, forcing the complainant to file the present complaint.

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 may be referred for mediation.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State, 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. 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.

3/5 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 primarily the parties are aggrieved with certain transaction of money and 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

4/5 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 parties have willingly desired to appear before the learned District Court on or before 19.02.2026, so that the matter can be referred to the District Mediation Centre.

12. Learned District Court is directed to take necessary steps to issue notices to the respective parties and upon their appearance, refer the matter before the learned Mediator of the District Mediation Center by fixing a date for appearance of the parties to give effect to Mediation 2.0.

13. Learned Mediator of the District Mediation Center concerned, upon appearance of the parties, shall make his/her best efforts to settle the dispute amicably and thereafter submit his/her report before the concerned learned District Court, well within a period of four months, till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid case.

14. In case, the parties resolve their dispute amicably or arrive at a mutual settlement, in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court as referred hereinabove, the petitioner is required to be released on pre-arrest bail on such terms and

5/5 conditions as the learned District Court deems it fit and proper.

15. In case of failure on the part of the petitioner to appear on 19.02.2026 before the learned District Court or any date fixed by the learned Mediator, the interim protection granted to the petitioner shall automatically lose its force.

16. In case, it is deliberate on the part of the informant to reconcile, then in that case, the interim protection granted to the petitioner shall continue and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law.

17. In case, the parties fail to reconcile, then in that case, parties may avail appropriate remedy. Then also, petitioner is directed to be released on pre-arrest bail on such terms and conditions as the learned District Court deems it fit and proper.

18. If both the parties arrive at amicable settlement, then they must withdraw the criminal cases, if any, which they have lodged against each other.

19. With aforesaid direction and observation, the present application stands disposed of.

(Purnendu Singh, J) Sanjay/- U T