[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Rajeev Sinha vs The State Of Bihar on 16 December, 2025
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76363 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-292 Year-2025 Thana- KASBA District- Purnia
======================================================
1. Rajeev Sinha, male, aged about 50 years, Son of Late Amar Nath Prasad,
Resident of - Block 25, Flat no. 10 F, Greenfield City, Sibrampur, Kolkata,
Pin - 700141, Bihar State Sale Head, Uma Consumer Product Limited,
Minerva, 1st Floor, 97, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 600004
2. Sanjeev Dar, male, aged about 47 years, Son of Late Sri Avinash Chander
Dar, Resident of - Flat no. 1503, Living Essence, Lokhandwala Township,
Kanivili East, Mumbai, Pin - 400101, Marketing Head, Uma Consumer
Product Limited, Minerva, 1st Floor, 97, Santhome High Road, Chennai -
600004
3. Rajiv Grover, male, aged about 49 years, Son of Sri Anand Prakash Grover
Resident of - 1002, Tower 22, Shriram Park 63, New Perungalathur,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu - 600063, Logistic Head, Uma Consumer Product
Limited, Minerva, 1st Floor, 97, Santhome High Road, Chennai - 600004
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Praveen Narayan S/o Bisheshwar Bhagat R/o - Sakin Patel Chowk, P.S -
Katihar, District - Katihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Apurv Harsh, Advocate
Mr. Manu Tripurari, Advocate
Mr. Raghu Raj Pratap, Advocate
Mr. Jaya Singh, Advocate
Mr. Pranshu Prakash, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 16-12-2025
Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel
along with Mr. Apurv Harsh, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned A.P.P. for
the State.
2. The petitioners have preferred application under
Section 528 BNSS for quashing of FIR in connection with
Kasba P.S. Case No. 292 of 2025 registered for offences
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76363 of 2025 dt.16-12-2025
2/11
punishable under Sections 318 (4), 316(2), 61(2), 351(2) and
3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. The prosecution story in brief is that the
Informant, namely, Praveen Narayan, is a distributor of
Annapurna Salt under UMA Consumer Product Limited and he
had furnished a bank guarantee of ₹1,25,00,000/- (Rupees One
Crore Twenty-Five Lakh only) in favor of the said company and
also has a pending claim of approximately 50-60 lakh to be
received from UMA Consumer Product Limited. He had
distributed goods worth about ₹2-3 crore in the market on
credit, strictly following the company's terms and conditions.
The petitioners had allegedly coerced the informant to purchase
two rakes per month, threatening to stop his work and withhold
his money otherwise and had allegedly conspired to embezzle
the complainant's funds. On 26.09.2025, the company refused to
provide further supplies to the informant and, via email,
informed the informant that his money would not be returned
and that the goods stored in the warehouse would be destroyed
as a result which, the complainant claims to have suffered a
financial loss of approximately 4.5 crore and severe mental
harassment. Aggrieved by the said act, the information has
lodged FIR being Kasba P.S. Case No. 292 of 2025 against the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76363 of 2025 dt.16-12-2025
3/11
petitioners.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that the company, namely, UMA
Consumer Products Private Limited appointed Mr. Praveen
Narayan (informant), who is proprietor of the Pragati Agencies,
as a Carrying and Forwarding Agent (CFA) upon express
representations of adequate manpower and experience. A Bank
Guarantee of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- was furnished by the informant
as performance/security. However, at the time of inspection of
Pragati Agencies's warehouse, it transpired that even basic
statutory/operational registers (Inward/Outward) were not
maintained. Despite repeated escalations and reminders by the
company, compliance remained wanting at the end of Pragati
Agencies. The company adopted a supportive, corrective
approach rather than termination. In June 2025, the company
transitioned the CFA relationship to Distributorship, appointing
M/s Bhawani Stores, Proprietor- Smt. Mala Devi at the instance
of Mr. Praveen Narayan (family). The company expressly
cautioned at inception that Distributorship requires adequate
credit/working capital to fund secondary, minimum four
salesmen (scalable with growth), market coverage & retail
service, a monthly rake commitment (~1,300 MT), regular
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76363 of 2025 dt.16-12-2025
4/11
MIS/DSR/ageing, and robust warehouse registers. The company
representatives even facilitated candidate interactions (as a
gesture of support), but clarified that recruitment, deployment
and supervision of sales staff is the Distributor's non-delegable
obligation. Despite repeated guidance by email and in-person,
M/s Bhawani Stores failed to deploy the adequate skilled
manpower, did not submit regular MIS (stock, secondary sales,
ageing), and did not maintain data hygiene. On ground, the
wholesalers were permitted to lift directly from the rake/stock
point. The business remained confined to a handful of Katihar
parties (~90%), with negligible geographic expansion elsewhere
in Purnea, Bihar. In meetings, instead of addressing sufficient
skilled manpower, beat plans, coverage and credit discipline,
Mr. Praveen Narayan while representing M/s Bhawani Stores,
repeatedly flaunt political connections, which is irrelevant to
distributorship performance and did not remedy operational
deficiencies. After multiple opportunities and escalations, the
company discontinued the Distributorship vide email dated
25.09.2025
, effective 30.09.2025. Learned counsel further
submitted that on 27.09.2025, Smt. Mala Devi. Proprietor of
M/s Bhawani Stores, sent a legal notice via email to the
Consumer Products Private Limited. On 27.09.2025 two days
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76363 of 2025 dt.16-12-2025
before the effective termination, the Distributor side lodged the
impugned police complaint on the same commercial matrix,
while paradoxically seeking continuation of the relationship.
The timing and tenor expose the mala fides and the attempt to
weaponize criminal law for commercial leverage. In reply to the
legal notice dated 27.09.2025, the Consumer Products Private
Limited company sent a reply to the aforementioned legal notice
on 30.09.2025. Learned counsel further submitted that the
informant has already filed money suit being Commercial Suit
Case No. 01 of 2025 before the Principal District Judge, Purnea.
On the above backgrounds, learned counsel submitted that the
impugned FIR is a sheer abuse of the process of law and the
criminal proceedings based on this have been initiated on
completely false premise and are, therefore, liable to be quashed
by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice. The allegations
contained in the Impugned FIR are wholly devoid of merit and
are completely false and tainted with mala fides and the FIR is
fit to be quashed and set aside.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State
submitted that it is well settled principle of law that the police
has the statutory right and duty under the provision contained in
Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure to investigate
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76363 of 2025 dt.16-12-2025
into cognizable offence and a caution has been made by the
Apex Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482, the
Court would not thwart any investigation in cognizable offence.
Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner, however, may
take recourse to the whatever defence he has taken before this
Court, at the time of framing of the charge. However, Learned
APP for the State submitted that the matter is purely civil in
nature and a chance be given to the parties for amicable
settlement outside the court.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners, on instruction, submitted that to buy peace of mind,
petitioner wants to settle the dispute amicably outside the Court
and the petitioners have agreed to appear before the learned
District Court on 24.12.2025 at 10:30 A.M.
7. Heard the parties.
8. Before I proceed to analyse, I find that recently,
the Apex Court in the case of Arshad Neyaz Khan Vs. State of
Jharkhand & Anr., reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 2058,
upon analysis of law, has finally concluded that Sections 406
and 420 of the Indian Penal Code cannot co-exist
simultaneously. The observations made by the Apex Court in
Para-16, 20 and 21 are reproduced hereinafter:
"16. The contents of the complaint as well as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76363 of 2025 dt.16-12-2025
the FIR would have to be read in light of the ingredients of
Sections 406 and 420 IPC and the law settled by this Court
through various judicial dicta. On perusal of the complaint
dated 29.01.2021, it is noted that the
complainant/respondent No. 2 has filed the said complaint
invoking Sections 406, 420 and 120B IPC. For ease of
reference, the aforesaid Sections are extracted as under:
"406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust.--
Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
xxx
420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of
property.- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces
the person deceived to deliver any property to any person,
or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a
valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed,
and which is capable of being converted into a valuable
security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years, and
shall also be liable to fine.
xxx
120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.-(1)
Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an
offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or
rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards,
shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for
the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the
same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other
than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable
as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term not exceeding six months, or with
fine or with both."
20. On perusal of the allegations contained in the
complaint, in light of the ingredients of Section 406 IPC,
read in the context of Section 405 IPC, do not find that any
offence of criminal breach of trust has been made out. It is
trite law that every act of breach of trust may not result in a
penal offence unless there is evidence of a manipulating act
of fraudulent misappropriation of property entrusted to him.
In the case of criminal breach of trust, if a person comes
into possession of the property and receives it legally, but
illegally retains it or converts it to its own use against the
terms of contract, then the question whether such retention
is with dishonest intention or not and whether such
retention involves criminal breach of trust or only a civil
liability would depend upon the facts and circumstances of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76363 of 2025 dt.16-12-2025
the case. In the present case, the complainant/respondent
No. 2 has failed to establish the ingredients essential to
constitute an offence under Section 406 IPC. The
complainant/respondent No. 2 has failed to place any
material on record to show us as to how he had entrusted
property to the appellant. Furthermore, the complaint also
omits to aver as to how the property, so entrusted to the
appellant, was dishonestly misappropriated or converted
for his own use, thereby committing a breach of trust.
21. Furthermore, it is pertinent to mention that if it is
the case of the complainant/respondent No. 2 that the
offence of criminal breach of trust as defined under Section
405 IPC, punishable under Section 406 IPC, is committed
by the accused, then in the same breath it cannot be said
that the accused has also committed the offence of cheating
as defined in Section 415, punishable under Section 420
IPC. This Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited v. State
of Uttar Pradesh, (2024) 10 SCC 690 observed that there is
a distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating.
For cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time of
making false or misleading representation i.e. since
inception. In criminal breach of trust, mere proof of
entrustment is sufficient. Thus, in case of criminal breach of
trust, the offender is lawfully entrusted with the property,
and he dishonestly misappropriates the same. Whereas, in
case of cheating, the offender fraudulently or dishonestly
induces a person by deceiving him to deliver a property. In
such a situation, both offences cannot co-exist
simultaneously. Consequently, the complaint cannot contain
both the offences that are independent and distinct. The said
offences cannot co-exist simultaneously in the same set of
facts as they are antithetical to each other."
9. Considering the nature of allegation made in the
F.I.R. which has a civil flavor and the same prima facie don't
disclose an overwhelming element of criminality. In the absence
of the element of criminality, if both civil and criminal cases are
allowed to continue, it will definitely amount to abuse of the
process of the law.
10. On earlier occasion also, similar view has been
taken by the Apex Court in para-12 in case of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76363 of 2025 dt.16-12-2025
Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673,
which is reproduced hereinafter::
"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."
11. In case of Usha Chakraborty v. State of West
Bengal, (2023) 15 SCC 135, while quashing the FIR therein and
further proceedings based thereon, the Apex Court observed as
under: -
'...the factual position thus would reveal
that the genesis as also the purpose of criminal
proceedings are nothing but the aforesaid incident
and further that the dispute involved is essentially of
civil nature.'
12. The Apex Court has reiterated the aforesaid
preposition in recent judgment of S.N. Vijayalakshmi & Ors.
Vrs. The State of Karnataka and Anr. reported in (2025) SCC
Online SC 1575.
13. The dispute between the parties is purely civil in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76363 of 2025 dt.16-12-2025
nature and the petitioner has willingly desired to appear before
the learned District Court on 24.12.2025 at 10:30 AM, so that
the matter can be referred to the District Mediation Centre.
14. 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.
15. Learned Mediator of the District Mediation Center
concerned shall make his/her best efforts to settle the dispute
between the parties 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 petitioners in connection with the aforesaid
case.
16. In case, the parties resolve their dispute amicably,
then the proceeding is required to be dropped in light of the law
laid down by the Apex Court as referred hereinabove.
17. In case of failure on the part of the petitioners to
appear on 24.12.2025 before the learned District Court or any
date fixed by the learned Mediator, without any reason, the
interim protection granted to the petitioners shall automatically
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76363 of 2025 dt.16-12-2025
lose its force.
18. In case, it is deliberate on the part of the
petitioners and they fail to reconcile, then in that case, the
learned District Court shall proceed with the trial. In case, it is
deliberate on the part of the opposite party no.2 to reconcile,
then in that case, the interim protection granted to the
petitioners shall continue and the trial shall proceed in
accordance with law.
19. It is observed that the police, at the stage of filing
of chargesheet, and the criminal court, at the stage of framing of
charges, must act as initial filters ensuring that only cases with a
strong suspicion should proceed to the formal trial stage to
maintain the efficiency and integrity of the judicial system.
20. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance is
modified to the above extent.
21. The application stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Niraj/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 19.12.2025
Transmission Date 19.12.2025
