Patna High Court
Vivek Ranjan @ Sonu MishraversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The Court held that the allegations are essentially civil, ordered referral to mediation, and granted interim pre‑arrest bail, disposing the application.
Summary
The petitioner, Vivek Ranjan, applied for pre‑arrest bail in a case where the FIR alleges he induced an informant to invest Rs 50 lakhs in a financial scheme and failed to repay, amounting to alleged cheating. The petitioner contended that he merely acted as a broker for a builder and that the dispute is essentially civil, seeking an amicable settlement. The High Court observed that the allegations lack a clear criminal element and resemble a civil dispute, warning against abuse of process if both civil and criminal proceedings continue. Relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding Section 482 of the CrPC and the need to quash criminal proceedings where a civil remedy exists, the Court directed the matter to be referred to mediation under the Mediation Act, 2023 and ordered interim protection and conditional pre‑arrest bail. The application was disposed, with directions for the district court and mediator to facilitate settlement within three months.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR discloses a criminal offence or merely a civil dispute.
- Whether pre‑arrest bail should be granted in the absence of a clear criminal element.
- Whether the criminal proceedings constitute an abuse of process and should be stayed or quashed.
- Whether the matter should be referred to mediation under the Mediation Act, 2023.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. Section 482
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- civil vs criminal dispute
- abuse of process
- mediation
- cheating
- criminal breach of trust
- Section 482 CrPC
- Mediation Act 2023
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12436 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-869 Year-2025 Thana- GOPALGANJ TOWN District-
Gopalganj
======================================================
Vivek Ranjan @ Sonu Mishra S/o Kaushal Kishore Mishra R/o Village -
Moniya Chowk, P.S. - Gopalganj Town, District - Gopalganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. P. N. Shahi, Sr. Advocate
Ms.Shubhangi Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Anand Vardhan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ram Naresh Ray, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
6 28-04-2026 Heard Mr. Mr. P. N. Shahi, learned Senior Counsel
along with Ms.Shubhangi Pandey and Mr. Anand Vardhan,
learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.
Ram Naresh Ray, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Gopalganj Nagar P.S. Case No. 869 of 2025 registered for
the offence(s) punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 338,
336(3), 340(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS.
3. As per the allegations made in the FIR, the
petitioner induced the informant to invest money in a financial
scheme on the assurance of higher returns within a period of
three months. Acting upon such representation, the informant
invested a total sum of Rs. 50 lakhs. However, upon expiry of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12436 of 2026(6) dt.28-04-2026
2/7
the stipulated period, the petitioner failed to repay the maturity
amount and is now allegedly threatening the informant.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been
falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that
the informant is a builder, while the petitioner acted merely as a
broker facilitating the sale of flats constructed by the builder. It
is also submitted that the builder is not before this Court and
that the flats have already been sold. However, on instruction,
learned counsel submitted that the matter is purely civil in
nature and to buy peace of mind, petitioner wants to settle the
dispute amicably outside the Court.
5. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State
submitted that a chance be given to the parties for amicable
settlement outside the court.
6. Counsel for the petitioner on instruction, submitted
that the petitioner has agreed to appear before the learned
District Court at 10:30 A.M. on or before 11.05.2026.
7. Heard the parties
8. Considering the nature of allegation made in the
F.I.R. which has a civil flavour and the same prima facie don’t
disclose an overwhelming element of criminality. In the absence
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12436 of 2026(6) dt.28-04-2026
3/7
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 law.
9. In this regard, I find it apt to refer the observation
made by the Apex Court in para-12 in case of 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."
10. The Apex Court has reiterated the aforesaid
preposition in its 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12436 of 2026(6) dt.28-04-2026
4/7
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:
Difference between criminal breach of trust
and cheating
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 :
“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
prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be
discharged, (ii) of any legal contract made, touching the
discharge of such trust.
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.”
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:
In order to constitute a criminal breach of
trust (Section 406 IPC)
(1) There must be entrustment with person for
property or dominion over the property, and
(2) The person entrusted:
(a) Dishonestly misappropriated or converted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12436 of 2026(6) dt.28-04-2026
5/7
property to his own use, or
(b) Dishonestly used or disposed of the
property or wilfully suffers any other person so to do in
violation of:
(i) Any direction of law prescribing the
method in which the trust is discharged; or
(ii) Legal contract touching the discharge of
trust (see : S.W. Palanitkar [S.W. Palanitkar v. State of
Bihar, (2002) 1 SCC 241.
Similarly, in respect of an offence under
Section 420IPC, the essential ingredients are:
(1) Deception of any person, either by making
a false or misleading representation or by other action or
by omission;
(2) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any
person to deliver any property, or
(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
SCC 712.
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."
12. Learned District Court is directed to take
necessary steps to refer the matter for mediation under the
provision of Mediation Act, 2023 before the learned Mediator
of the District Mediation Center after issuing notice to
informant by fixing a date for their appearance to give effect to
“Mediation for the Nation 2.0.”
13. Thereafter, learned Mediator of the District
Mediation Center concerned shall make his/her best efforts to
settle the dispute amicably and submit his/her report before the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12436 of 2026(6) dt.28-04-2026
6/7
concerned learned District Court, well within a period of three
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 referredabove, the petitioner is required to be
released on pre-arrest bail on such terms and 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 or before 11.05.2026 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. With aforesaid direction and observation, the
present application stands disposed of.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12436 of 2026(6) dt.28-04-2026
7/7
19. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Member Secretary, Bihar State Legal Services Authority and the
Patna High Court Mediation Centre for the purpose of record.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…