Patna High Court
Samir Nath JhaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The Court ordered interim pre‑arrest bail and directed mediation, holding that the dispute is essentially civil and should be resolved amicably before proceeding with criminal action.
Summary
The petitioners, Samir Nath Jha and his wife, applied for pre‑arrest bail in a case where an informant alleged that they received Rs 6.20 lakh for a land transaction that was never completed and the amount was not returned. The petitioners contended that the matter is a civil monetary dispute and that the informant should have approached a civil court instead of filing an FIR. The State argued that the petitioners deliberately cheated the informant, constituting fraud. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that where a civil dispute is cloaked as a criminal case, the court should encourage settlement and use its powers sparingly. Consequently, the Court directed the parties to appear before the District Court for mediation, granted interim pre‑arrest bail conditioned on mediation, and disposed of the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR discloses a cognizable criminal offence or merely a civil dispute.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to pre‑arrest bail pending mediation.
- Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash or stay the criminal proceedings.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 316(2), 318(4), 3(5)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 420
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- civil dispute
- mediation
- Section 482 CrPC
- abuse of process
- criminal breach of trust
- cheating
- Indian Penal Code
- Bihar law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13066 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-70 Year-2025 Thana- BHAIRAVSHTHAN District- Madhubani
======================================================
1. Samir Nath Jha S/O Late Balbodh Jha R/O Village - Sarwsima, P.s - Bhairab
Asthan, District - Madhubani
2. Soni Devi W/o Mr. Samir Nath Jha R/O Village - Sarwsima, P.s - Bhairab
Asthan, District - Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Bharat Nath Jha S/o- Late Kedar Nath Jha, R/o Village- Naruar, P.S.-
Bhairab Asthan, District- Madhubani
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Satya Nand Shukla, APP.
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Gautam Kejriwal, Advocate.
Mr. Alok Kumar Jha, Advocate.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 28-04-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 and learned APP
for the State.
2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection
with Bhairab Asthan P.S. Case No. 70 of 2025 registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2) and 3(5) of
the BNS.
3. As per the allegation made in the F.I.R., informant
is said to have paid Rs.6,20,000/- to the petitioners in their bank
account for executing a piece of land, details of which is
mentioned in the F.I.R., but neither the sale deed was executed
nor the amount paid to the petitioners was returned to him.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13066 of 2026(3) dt.28-04-2026
2/7
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have
been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further
submitted that the allegations made in the F.I.R. do not disclose
any criminal ingredients and that the dispute primarily arises out
of a monetary transaction between the parties. Learned counsel
contends that, instead of availing the appropriate remedy before
the competent Civil Court by filing a money suit, the informant
has lodged the present F.I.R. with a view to put undue pressure
upon the petitioners. Learned counsel, referring to paragraph
nos. 10 and 11, submits that, in fact, the amount claimed by the
informant was required to be returned to the petitioners, as the
father of petitioner no. 1 had paid the said amount to the
informant towards the purchase of building materials. He further
submitted that for amicable settlement of dispute between the
parties outside the Court, the matter be referred for mediation.
5. Per contra, Mr. Gautam Kejriwal, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant, submits that the
petitioners, with a pre-conceived mind, committed fraud by not
executing sale deed and thereby cheated the informant. In such
circumstances, the informant had no alternative than to lodge
the present F.I.R. He further submitted that a chance be given to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13066 of 2026(3) dt.28-04-2026
3/7
the parties for amicable settlement outside the court.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties,
on instructions, submitted that the parties have agreed to appear
before the learned District Court at 10:30 A.M. on or before
15.05.2026
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 F.I.R., I am of the opinion that 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13066 of 2026(3) dt.28-04-2026
4/7
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
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 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:
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13066 of 2026(3) dt.28-04-2026
5/7
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
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."
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13066 of 2026(3) dt.28-04-2026
6/7
12. The parties have willingly desired to appear
before the learned District Court on or before 15.05.2026, so
that the matter can be referred to the District Mediation Centre.
13. Learned District Court is directed to take
necessary steps to 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 for the Nation 2.0”.
14. 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 three months, till then, no coercive action
shall be taken against the petitioners in connection with the
aforesaid case.
15. 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 petitioners are
required to be released on pre-arrest bail on such terms and
conditions as the learned District Court deems it fit and proper.
16. In case of failure on the part of the petitioners to
appear on or before 15.05.2026 before the learned District Court
or any date fixed by the learned Mediator, the interim protection
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13066 of 2026(3) dt.28-04-2026
7/7
granted to the petitioners shall automatically lose its force.
17. In case, it is deliberate on the part of the informant
to reconcile, then in that case, the interim protection granted to
the petitioners shall continue and the trial shall proceed in
accordance with law.
18. In case, the parties fail to reconcile, then in that
case, parties may avail appropriate remedy. Then also,
petitioners are directed to be released on pre-arrest bail on such
terms and conditions as the learned District Court deems it fit
and proper.
19. If both the parties arrive at amicable settlement,
then they must withdraw the criminal cases, if any, which they
have lodged against each other.
20. With aforesaid direction and observation, the
present application stands disposed of.
21. 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)
mantreshwar/-
U T
Checking your session…