Patna High Court
Md. AmruddinversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The High Court ordered conditional pre‑arrest bail, directing the parties to undergo mediation before the District Court, with bail to be confirmed if settlement is reached.
Summary
The petitioners, accused of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the IPC for an alleged fraudulent land transaction, applied for pre‑arrest bail, claiming the matter is a civil dispute and that the sale deed was executed voluntarily. The State also expressed willingness for an amicable settlement. The High Court, referring to Supreme Court pronouncements that civil disputes should not be cloaked as criminal offences, ordered the parties to appear before the District Court for mediation and directed that no coercive action be taken against the petitioners pending that process. The Court granted interim protection in the form of conditional pre‑arrest bail, subject to appearance before the District Court on 26‑02‑2026 and compliance with mediation outcomes. If the petitioners fail to appear, the interim protection will lapse; otherwise, bail may be confirmed by the District Court.
Issues considered
- Whether the alleged land transaction constitutes a criminal offence warranting pre‑arrest detention or is essentially a civil dispute amenable to mediation.
- Whether the High Court can grant pre‑arrest bail and stay coercive action under Section 482 of the CrPC in such circumstances.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 420, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- civil dispute
- mediation
- criminal breach of trust
- cheating
- Section 420 IPC
- Section 482 CrPC
- settlement
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2458 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-240 Year-2024 Thana- SAHEBGANJ District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
1. Md. Amruddin S/O Late Md. Mahmood Miya @ Mohammad Mahmood
Meya Resident of Village- Fulwariya, P.S.- Rajepur (Sahebganj), District-
Muzaffarpur.
2. Parmeshwar Kumar S/O Indradev Sah Resident of Village- Jamuya, P.S-
Jamuya, Distt.- Sitamarhi, A/P R/O Village- Fulwariya, P.S.- Rajepur
(Sahebganj), District- Muzaffarpur.
3. Md. Jafir @ Md Zafir S/O Late Md. Hadish @ Mottadish R/O Village-
Rampurwa, P.S- Baruraj, Dist.- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Gauri Shankar Choudhari S/O Late Ram Lakhu Sah R/O Village and Post-
Parsauni, P.S- Reajepur (Sahebganj), Distt.- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Jai Prakash Verma, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Mithlesh Kumar Khare, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 06-02-2026 Heard Mr. Jai Prakash Verma, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Mithlesh Kumar
Khare, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection
with Sahebganj P.S. Case No. 240 of 2024 registered for the
offence(s) punishable under Sections 420,467,468,471,120(B)
of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Allegation is that taking advantage of the unsound
health of the brother of the informant, the accused persons in an
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2458 of 2026(2) dt.06-02-2026
2/7
organized manner got a piece of land appertaining to khata
No.92, Khesra No.1335 executed in their name for a total
consideration amount of Rs.6 lacs and subsequent to that on the
pretext of necessary correction in the sale deed, another sale
deed was executed by the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that petitioners are innocent and have
falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submitted
that no fraud has been committed in view of the fact that
informant and his brother had voluntarily accepted the
consideration amount and had executed the sale deed. However,
on instruction, learned counsel submitted that to buy peace of
mind, petitioners again want 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. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners, on instructions, submitted that the petitioners have
agreed to appear before the learned District Court at 10:30 A.M.
on 26.02.2026.
7. Heard the parties
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2458 of 2026(2) dt.06-02-2026
3/7
8. Having heard the rival submissions made on
behalf of the parties, as well as, I have also perused the
allegation made in the FIR from which, it appears that there is a
dispute between the parties and in such circumstances, 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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2458 of 2026(2) dt.06-02-2026
4/7
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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2458 of 2026(2) dt.06-02-2026
5/7
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."
12. The petitioners are directed to appear before the
learned District Court on 26.02.2026, so that the matter can be
referred to the District Mediation Centre.
13. Learned District Court is directed to take
necessary steps to issue notices to the respective parties and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2458 of 2026(2) dt.06-02-2026
6/7
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.’
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 petitioner 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, 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 26.02.2026 before the learned District Court or any
date fixed by the learned Mediator, the interim protection
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2458 of 2026(2) dt.06-02-2026
7/7
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. With aforesaid direction and observation, the
present application stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…