Patna High Court
Abhishek KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The High Court ordered that the petitioner be released on pre‑arrest bail subject to mediation and compliance with the District Court’s directions, emphasizing that civil disputes disguised as criminal matters should be settled amicably.
Summary
The petitioner, a hospital manager, applied for pre‑arrest bail in a case alleging criminal breach of trust and cheating under IPC Sections 406, 409 and 420, claiming the dispute is essentially a monetary civil matter. The State opposed bail, but both parties agreed to appear before the District Court for mediation. The High Court, citing Supreme Court precedents, held that where a civil dispute is cloaked in criminal allegations, the court should facilitate amicable settlement and refrain from coercive action. Accordingly, the court directed the District Court to issue notices, refer the matter to a mediator, and release the petitioner on bail subject to the mediator’s and court’s conditions. The interim protection remains until the parties either settle, fail to appear, or the trial proceeds as per law, and the application was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether pre‑arrest bail should be granted in a case involving alleged criminal breach of trust and cheating.
- Whether the dispute is essentially civil and should be resolved through mediation rather than criminal prosecution.
- Whether the High Court can invoke its powers under Section 482 CrPC to stay or quash the proceedings to prevent abuse of process.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 409, 420
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- criminal breach of trust
- cheating
- mediation
- civil dispute
- abuse of process
- Section 482
- IPC
- CrPC
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44602 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-187 Year-2024 Thana- DANAPUR District- Patna
======================================================
Abhishek Kumar, aged about 26 years, (Male), Son of Late Arun Kumar
Singh, Resident of Village- Dhaknibigha, P.S.- Makhdumpur, District-
Jehanabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 21-01-2026 Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Uday Chand
Prasad, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Danapur P.S. Case No. 187 of 2024 registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that the petitioner, who
works as a manager in the hospital of the informant, had
allegedly committed financial irregularity and had not deposited
Rs. 39 lakh in the bank account of the informant. Thereafter, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44602 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
2/7
informant had checked the salary account of the petitioner and
had found that Rs. 22 Lakh has been deposited in the salary
account of the petitioner.
4. 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 monetary transaction between the
parties and for amicable settlement of dispute between the
parties outside the Court, the matter be referred for mediation.
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. However, at this stage, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner, on instructions, submitted that the
petitioner has agreed to appear before the learned District Court
at 10:30 A.M. on 19.02.2026 for resolving the dispute by way of
mediation .
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 FIR, I am of the opinion that an opportunity is
required to be given to the parties to settle their score amicably
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44602 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
3/7
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
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,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44602 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
4/7
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
property to his own use, or
(b) Dishonestly used or disposed of the
property or wilfully suffers any other person so to do in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44602 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
5/7
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 petitioner has willingly desired to appear
before the learned District Court on or before 19.02.2026, 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
upon their appearance, refer the matter before the learned
Mediator of the District Mediation Center by fixing a date for
appearance of the parties.
14. Learned Mediator of the District Mediation Center
concerned, upon appearance of the parties, shall make his/her
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44602 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
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 four 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 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.
16. In case of failure on the part of the petitioner to
appear on 19.02.2026 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.44602 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
7/7
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.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Niraj/-
U T
Checking your session…