Patna High Court
Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar DasversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The High Court ordered interim pre‑arrest bail and directed mediation, holding that the matter is essentially a civil dispute and should be resolved through settlement rather than continued criminal prosecution.
Summary
Petitioner Rajesh Kumar applied for pre‑arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 352 of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging that he received an advance of ₹1,00,000 for fly‑ash bricks which he neither supplied nor refunded. The prosecution framed the matter as criminal breach of trust and cheating, while the petitioner contended that the dispute was essentially civil and sought mediation. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court pronouncements in Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand and subsequent cases, held that where a civil remedy is available and the parties are willing to settle, the court should facilitate mediation rather than pursue coercive criminal action. Accordingly, the Court directed the District Court to issue notices, refer the matter to the District Mediation Centre, and grant the petitioner interim protection (pre‑arrest bail) subject to his appearance before the mediator by 27‑04‑2026. The application was disposed with directions for mediation and conditional bail.
Issues considered
- What is the nature of the dispute – criminal offence or civil transaction?
- Whether pre‑arrest bail should be granted pending mediation under Section 482 CrPC?
- Whether the High Court can intervene to prevent abuse of process when a civil remedy is available.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 316(2), 318(4), 352
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 420
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- mediation
- civil dispute
- criminal breach of trust
- cheating
- Section 482 CrPC
- Section 316 BNS
- Section 318 BNS
- Section 352 BNS
- settlement
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20402 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-317 Year-2025 Thana- KORHA District- Katihar
======================================================
Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Kumar Das Son of Sukhdev Das Resident Of
Village- Belori Near Gajmatia Dharm Kanta, Ps- Muffasil (Ranipatra), Dist-
Purnea
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Simu Priya @ Sinu Priya Wife of Sri Navin Mandal Resident Of Village-
Gerabari Bazar (Shimali Hotal), Ps- Korha, Dist- Katihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Kumar Anand, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Sangeeta Sharma, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 08-04-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Korha P.S. Case No. 317 of 2025 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 352 of the BNS.
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the petitioner
had received an advance payment of ₹1,00,000 from the
informant on account of supplying Flyash bricks but failed to
supply the same. Despite repeated demands, he neither supplied
the bricks nor returned the money. It is further alleged that when
the informant demanded either delivery of bricks or refund of
the advance, which she had given the petitioner, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20402 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
2/7
accused/petitioner had abused her and refused to refund the
amount.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has
falsely been implicated in the case. He further submits that the
matter primarily relates to civil dispute between the parties and
for amicable settlement of dispute between the parties outside
the Court, the matter be referred for mediation.
6. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State
submitted that a chance be given to the parties for amicable
settlement outside the court.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, on instruction, submitted that petitioner has agreed to
appear before the learned District Court at 10:30 A.M. on or
before 27.04.2026 for resolving the dispute by way of
mediation.
9. Heard the parties
10. 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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20402 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
3/7
11. 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
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)
12. 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.
13. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20402 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
4/7
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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20402 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
5/7
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."
14. The petitioner has willingly desired to appear
before the learned District Court on or before 27.04.2026, so
that the matter can be referred to the District Mediation Centre.
15. 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 to give effect to “Mediation for the
Nation 2.0”.
16. Learned Mediator of the District Mediation Center
concerned, upon appearance of the parties, shall make his/her
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20402 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
6/7
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 petitioner in connection with the
aforesaid case.
17. 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 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20402 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
7/7
21. If both the parties arrive at amicable settlement,
then they must withdraw the criminal cases, if any, which they
have lodged against each other.
22. With aforesaid direction and observation, the
present application stands disposed of.
23. 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)
Niraj/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.