Patna High Court
Upendra ThakurversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The High Court held that the complaint is essentially civil in nature, lacking a substantial criminal element, and therefore the petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest bail subject to mediation and conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, a director of Gitanjali Udhyog Ltd., applied for pre‑arrest bail in a complaint alleging cheating under Section 420 IPC and a dishonoured cheque under Section 138 NI Act. The FIR alleged that the petitioner induced an investor to deposit Rs.1,92,000 promising a higher return, which was not paid, and that a co‑accused issued a cheque that later bounced. The petitioner claimed innocence, arguing that the dispute is essentially civil and that the company director is the real wrongdoer. The State agreed to an amicable settlement. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that the allegations lack a substantial criminal element and are of a civil nature, directing the matter to mediation and granting interim pre‑arrest bail subject to conditions, with the application disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the complaint discloses a criminal offence or is essentially a civil dispute.
- Whether pre‑arrest bail can be granted pending mediation in a case alleged under Sec. 420 IPC and Sec. 138 NI Act.
- Whether the High Court can invoke its power under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 420
- Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 138
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- Section 420 IPC
- Section 138 NI Act
- civil nature of dispute
- abuse of process
- mediation
- Section 482 CrPC
- criminal complaint
- quash
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20383 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1837 Year-2014 Thana- VAISALI COMPLAINT CASE
District- Vaishali
======================================================
Upendra Thakur S/o Bhageran Thakur C/o D.O. Gitanjali Udyog Limited
Branch- Lalganj, Teenpulwa Chowk, Permanent Address- R/o Village-
Parmanandpur, P.S- Lalganj, Dist- Vaishali at Hajipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Suresh Rai S/o Sukhdev Rai R/o Village- Maanpur, P.S- Lalganj, Dist-
Vaishali at Hajipur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Niranjan Parihar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Mohammad Sufyan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 08-04-2026 Heard Mr. Niranjan Parihar, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Mohammad
Sufyan, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Complaint Case No. 1837/2014 registered for the
offence(s) punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
3. As per the allegations made in the FIR, the
petitioner, who is stated to be a (D.O.) of a company, namely
Gitanjali Udhyog Ltd., induced the complainant to invest money
on the assurance of a higher return with a better rate of interest
than that offered by banks. Acting upon such representation, the
complainant deposited a total sum of Rs. 1,92,000/-. However,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20383 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
2/5
upon completion of the stipulated period, the petitioner failed to
return the maturity amount, which was stated to be Rs.
2,32,000/-. It is further alleged that another co-
accused/Parmashish Bhaduri issued a cheque dated 31.01.2014
in favour of the complainant for an amount of Rs. 2,29,760/-,
which, upon presentation, was dishonoured.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has
falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel
further submitted that the sole responsibility is of the Director
of the Company who has committed forgery with the depositors
and the petitioner being the employee of the Company is only
responsible to issue the cheque. 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. Counsels 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 27.04.2026.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20383 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
3/5
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
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. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20383 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
4/5
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.’
11. 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.
12. Learned District Court is directed to take
necessary steps to refer the matter before the learned Mediator
of the District Mediation Center after issuing notice to the O.P.
No.2 and the Director of the Company, details of whom will
be given by the petitioner, 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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20383 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
5/5
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 27.04.2026 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
complainant 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.
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…