Patna High Court - Orders
Sandeep Sehgal vs The State Of Bihar on 11 May, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1545 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-819 Year-2019 Thana- KANKARBAG District- Patna
======================================================
Pravin Kumar Gautam S/O Late Anuragh Narayan Sharma Designation- Area
Sales Manager, R/O B/169, Police Colony, Anisabad, P.S- Phulwari, Patna-
800002
... ... Petitioner/S
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Arvind Kumar S/O Bhola Prasad Singh R/O Sakin-L.J.E 59/100,
Kankarbagh, Lohiyanagar, Patna- 800002
... ... Opposite Party/S
======================================================
With
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1665 Of 2023
Arising Out Of Ps. Case No.-819 Year-2019 Thana- Kankarbag District- Patna
======================================================
Sandeep Sehgal Son Of Shri Amar Nath Sehgal Designation- Associate
Director, At Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. Having Its Office At 12th Floor,
Ambience Tower, Ambience Island, Nh-8, Gurugram, Haryana- 122002,
Permanent Address R/O F-27, P.S.- Lajpat Nagar-Ist, New Delhi- 110024
... ... Petitioner/S
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Arvind Kumar Son Of Bhola Prasad Singh R/O Sakin- L.J.E 59/100,
Kankarbagh, Lohiyanagar, Patna- 800002
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 1545 of 2023)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dayanand Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 1665 of 2023)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dayanand Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL ORDER
6 11-05-2026This case has come under the heading 'to be mentioned' at the instance of the office.
2. From perusal of the order no. 5 dated 23.04.2026 it Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1545 of 2023(6) dt.11-05-2026 2/5 appears that inadvertently a draft order has been uploaded which was not even corrected.
3. Accordingly, office is directed to delete the order no. 5 dated 23.04.2026. Fresh order should be read as:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The present application has been filed by the petitioner invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court for quashing of Kankarbagh P.S. Case No. 819 of 2019 pending before the court of learned ADJ, XVI, Patna registered for offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The informant submits that he is the proprietor of M/s Jai Bhawani Enterprises which is engaged in the trading of electronic items of Panasonic since 20.03.2011 and is also their authorized dealer. The informant alleges that in November, 2018, Panasonic Company pressurized them to open an e-DFS (Electronic Distribution Finance Scheme) account with State Bank of India and the employees of Panasonic who are the petitioners in the present case informed him that his distribution agency will be withdrawn with immediate effect if they fail to open the account with State Bank of India. The informant further alleges that the petitioners visited his office situated at Lohiyanagar on 31.01.2019 and made him sign the account opening documents along with Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1545 of 2023(6) dt.11-05-2026 3/5 other documents and the account in the name of M/s Jai Bhawani Enterprises was opened. The informant has further alleged that he was never informed by the petitioners that the Company will have the withdrawing power for the said account and the Company withdrew Rs. 9800000 (Rupees Ninety Eight Lakhs Only) from the e-DFS account of the Informant without any information and the Informant was oblivious regarding the same. The informant has further stated that he was fraudulently removed from the position of the authorized dealer of the Company without any prior intimation and another Company was appointed as the authorized dealer.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that petitioners are arrayed as accused in the FIR, the petitioners are working with Panasonic India Private Limited as Area Sales Manger and Product Category Chief respectively. He further submits that since the dealings between the Panasonic and the informant were commercial in nature, based on the aforesaid agreement dated 30.12.2015 disputes, if any, arising under the agreement were to be resolved by way of arbitration under clause XXV of the agreement. He further submits that the dispute between the parties is a commercial business dispute and does not attract any criminal liability as against the petitioners. The necessary ingredients for fastening the offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating is Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1545 of 2023(6) dt.11-05-2026 4/5 lacking against the petitioners as there are no allegation against the petitioners in the entire FIR. It is further submitted that there was business transaction between the informant and the company and later on business dispute arose between the informant and company and therefore it is purely a business dispute which has been converted into a criminal case and with malafide intention the petitioners have been arraigned as accused no. 1 and 3 respectively.
5. I have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the materials on record. A bare reading of the records show that it is purely business dispute to which no element of criminality could be attached. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian oil corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736 in para-13 has held that:
"While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable breakdown of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1545 of 2023(6) dt.11-05-2026 5/5 effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. In G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [(2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513] this Court observed: (SCC p. 643, para 8) "It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."
6. In such view of the matter, Kankarbagh P.S. Case No. 819 of 2019 pending before the court of learned ADJ, XVI, Patna is hereby quashed.
7. Accordingly, the application stands allowed."
(Ansul, J) Siddharth Soni/-
U T