Disposed¶59

Rohit Agrawal v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC20 Nov 2025CR. MISC./44861/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44861 of 2024 (decided 20-11-2025, Purnendu Singh, J): Section 482 Cr.P.C. application to quash cognizance dated 04.03.2023 under Sections 420, 406 & 120(B) IPC in Complaint Case No.592(C)/2023 over unpaid salesman's salary (approx. Rs.1,95,000/-); dispute conceded purely civil; referral to District Mediation Centre ordered; interim no-coercive-action protection conditional on appearance on 12.12.2025; application disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Interim protection from coercive action against the petitioners until the Mediator's report (due within one month), conditional on appearance before the learned District Court on 12.12.2025; matter referred to the District Mediation Centre; application disposed of with trial to resume on failed reconciliation and proceedings to be dropped on amicable resolution.

Rohit Agrawal Vs The State of Bihar — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶59

Issue for consideration

Whether the order taking cognizance dated 04.03.2023 under Sections 420, 406 & 120(B) IPC in Complaint Case No.592(C) of 2023 should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

The learned District Court is directed to take necessary steps to refer the matter before the learned Mediator of the District Mediation Center.

¶51

Ratio / Principle

The dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, and the parties willingly desired to appear before the learned District Court on 12.12.2025 for referral of the matter to the District Mediation Centre.

¶50

Key takeaways

The Mediator shall endeavour to settle the dispute amicably and submit a report to the concerned District Court within one month; till then no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners.ratio¶52
Failure of the petitioner to appear on 12.12.2025 or on any date fixed by the learned Mediator causes the interim protection to automatically lose its force.ratio¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Cognizance quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. — Complaint under Sections 420, 406 & 120(B) IPC (Complaint Case No.592(C) of 2023, CJM Patna, cognizance dated 04.03.2023) alleging non-payment of salary to a Salesman engaged in M/S Balajee Fabrics at Rs.60,000/- per month from 04.09.2022, with approximately Rs.1,95,000/- (four months' salary) unpaid. Both sides' counsels conceded the matter was primarily monetary and civil in nature, and the parties expressed willingness to settle amicably. Placing reliance on the Apex Court's settled position (Paramjeet Batra, (2013) 11 SCC 673; S. N. Vijayalakshmi, (2025) SCC Online SC 1575) and the exposition of ingredients of Sections 406/420 IPC in Delhi Race Club (Criminal Appeal No. 3114 of 2024), the Court held the dispute purely civil in nature, disposed of the application, directed referral to the District Mediation Centre through the learned District Court with a mediation report within one month, granted interim protection against coercive action conditional on appearance on 12.12.2025, and directed that the proceeding be dropped upon amicable resolution but trial shall proceed on failure to reconcile.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44861 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-592 Year-2023 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna

¶3

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

¶4

Rohit Agrawal Son of Motilal Agarwal

¶5

Sanju Gupta Son of Om Prakash R/O- H-1421-1423-1424, Ground Floor, Millenium Textile Market, Police Station- Gopipura, Police Choki Ring Road, District- Surat, State- Gujrat

¶6

... ... Petitioner/s

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Bihar

¶9

Ranjan Kumar Gupta @ Pappu Kumar Gupta Son of Late Ganga Sao R/OJahaji Kothi, Abhishek Place, Ps-Kadamkuan, District- Patna

¶10

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶11

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Aarsh Kumar, Advocate Mr.Ravi Kant Tiwari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Parmanand Kumar, APP ======================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT

¶13

Date : 20-11-2025

¶14

Heard Mr. Aarsh Kumar along with Mr. Ravi Kant Tiwari, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Parmanand Kumar, learned APP for the State.

¶15

The present application has been preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of order taking cognizance dated 04.03.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No.592(C) of 2023, whereby the cognizance has been taken under Sections 420, 406 & 120(B) of IPC.

¶16

The prosecution story in short is that the

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44861 of 2024 dt.20-11-2025 2/6

¶18

complainant was appointed by the petitioners as the Salesman on salary of Rs.60,000/- per month and he started working in M/S Balajee Fabrics since 04.09.2022 but after lapse of one month, the complainant was paid only (Rs.30,000+15,000) Rs.45,000/- and the petitioner no.2 assured to pay the rest amount to the complainant but four months’ salary of the complainant (approximately Rs.1,95,000/-) has not been paid.

¶19

Respective counsels are of the opinion that the matter primarily relates to monetary transaction between the parties.

¶20

Both the parties have referred to the materials/evidences which have surfaced in course of investigation, but they admit that the nature of allegation is civil in nature. They have arrived to inform this Court that they will try to settle the dispute amicably outside the Court.

¶21

Law in this regard is well settled by the Apex Court in the 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:

¶22

" 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

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44861 of 2024 dt.20-11-2025 3/6

¶24

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."

¶25

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 .

¶26

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:

¶27

Difference between criminal breach of trust

¶28

and cheating

¶29

35. This Court in its decision in S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar, (2002) 1 SCC 241 expounded the difference in the ingredients required for constituting of an offence of criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) vis-à-vis the offence of cheating (Section 420). The relevant observations read as under :

¶30

“9. The ingredients in order to constitute a criminal breach of trust are : (i) entrusting a person with property or with any dominion over property; (ii) that person entrusted : (a) dishonestly misappropriating or converting that property to his own use; or (b) dishonestly using or disposing of that property or wilfully suffering any other person so to do in violation (i) of any direction of law

¶31

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44861 of 2024 dt.20-11-2025 4/6

¶32

prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, (ii) of any legal contract made, touching the discharge of such trust.

¶33

10. The ingredients of an offence of cheating are : (i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him, (ii)(a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (iii) in cases covered by (ii) (b), the act of omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property.”

¶34

36. What can be discerned from the above is that the offences of criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) and cheating (Section 420 IPC) have specific ingredients:

¶35

In order to constitute a criminal breach of

¶36

trust (Section 406 IPC)

¶37

(1) There must be entrustment with person for property or dominion over the property, and

¶38

(2) The person entrusted:

¶39

(a) Dishonestly misappropriated or converted property to his own use, or

¶40

(b) Dishonestly used or disposed of the property or wilfully suffers any other person so to do in violation of:

¶41

(i) Any direction of law prescribing the method in which the trust is discharged; or

¶42

(ii) Legal contract touching the discharge of trust (see : S.W. Palanitkar [S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar, (2002) 1 SCC 241.

¶43

Similarly, in respect of an offence under Section 420IPC, the essential ingredients are:

¶44

(1) Deception of any person, either by making a false or misleading representation or by other action or by omission;

¶45

(2) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property, or

¶46

(3) The consent that any person shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit (see : Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab [Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab, (2009) 7

¶47

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44861 of 2024 dt.20-11-2025 5/6

¶48

SCC 712.

¶49

37. Further, in both the aforesaid sections, mens rea i.e. intention to defraud or the dishonest intention must be present, and in the case of cheating it must be there from the very beginning or inception."

¶50

The dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature and the parties have willingly desired to appear before the learned District Court on 12.12.2025 at 10:30 AM, so that the matter can be referred to the District Mediation Centre.

¶51

Learned District Court is directed to take necessary steps to refer the matter before the learned Mediator of the District Mediation Center.

¶52

Learned Mediator of the District Mediation Center concerned 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 one month, till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners in connection with the aforesaid case.

¶53

In case of failure on the part of the petitioner to appear on 12.12.2025 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.

¶54