Patna High Court
Priyanka KumariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The High Court granted interim pre‑arrest bail and directed mediation, holding that the matter is essentially civil and criminal proceedings should be stayed pending settlement.
Summary
Priyanka Kumari applied for pre‑arrest bail in a case where the informant, Gunjan Kumar, alleged that he was cheated out of Rs 32 lakh in a land transaction involving property dealers. The prosecution charged the accused under IPC sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 120(B)/34. The petitioner claimed innocence and argued that the dispute is essentially civil and should be settled by mediation. The High Court, citing the Supreme Court’s observations in Paramjeet Batra and S.N. Vijayalakshmi, held that where a civil remedy is available and parties consent to mediation, the criminal proceedings should be stayed and interim bail granted. The court directed the District Court to facilitate mediation and ordered that the petitioner remain on pre‑arrest bail, subject to conditions, with the protection lapsing if the parties fail to appear.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations disclose a criminal offence or merely a civil dispute warranting mediation.
- Whether pre‑arrest bail should be granted pending mediation in a case involving IPC sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 120(B)/34.
- Whether the High Court can quash or stay criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC when a civil remedy is available.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 34, 419, 420, 467, 468
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- civil dispute
- mediation
- abuse of process
- Section 482 CrPC
- IPC sections 419,420,467,468,120B,34
- High Court jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44867 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-71 Year-2024 Thana- Bypass District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Priyanka Kumari, aged about 35 years, (Female), W/O Pankaj Kumar,
resident of Village- Bhatonia, P.S- Madhusudanpur, District- Bhagalpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Gunjan Kumar S/o- Arun Mandal, R/o- Village- Sano, P.S.- Jagdishpur,
District- Bhagalpur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Saurabh, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Diwakar Upadhyaya, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Syed Ehteshamuddin, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
5 21-01-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner; learned counsel for the informant and learned APP
for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Bypass P.S. Case No. 71 of 2024 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 120(B)/34 of
the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant,
Gunjan Kumar, lodged a written report before the Officer-in-
Charge, Bypass Police Station alleging that on the advice of
property dealers Sushil Prasad Mandal, Umesh Prasad Mandal
and Pintu Kumar, he purchased land measuring 2 Kattha, part of
Khesra No. 08, Khata No. 2, situated at Mouza Amnai, Thana
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44867 of 2025(5) dt.21-01-2026
2/6
No. 151, in the name of his wife Priyanka Kumari from Archana
Sah, for which an agreement to sell dated 05.12.2022 was
executed and a total sum of Rs. 32,00,000/- was paid by him,
including Rs. 4,00,000/- by cheque, Rs. 10,00,000/- in cash and
Rs. 18,00,000/- through RTGS to the account of Archana Sah,
followed by execution of Kevala on 15.02.2023, mutation and
construction of a boundary wall; however, subsequently he
received a call from a person posing as an Anchal Karamchari
informing him that the land had been purchased from a wrong
person, whereafter the property dealers became untraceable, and
upon visiting the house of Archana Sah, the informant allegedly
realised that the said call was part of the same transaction, and
thus the accused persons, in connivance with each other, cheated
him and caused wrongful loss of Rs. 32,00,000/-.
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 counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant opposing the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44867 of 2025(5) dt.21-01-2026
3/6
submitted that an opportunity may be given to the parties to
resolve their dispute amicably outside the Court.
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. However, at this stage, learned counsel for the
respective parties, on instruction, submitted that the parties have
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.
8. Heard the parties
9. Having considered the rival submissions made on
behalf of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegation
made in the FIR, which disclose civil texture, I am of the
opinion that an opportunity is required to be given to the parties
to settle their score amicably outside the Court.
10. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44867 of 2025(5) dt.21-01-2026
4/6
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)
11. 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.
12. The parties have 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
for giving effect to Mediation 2.0.
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
best efforts to settle the dispute amicably and thereafter submit
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44867 of 2025(5) dt.21-01-2026
5/6
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.
19. If both the parties arrive at amicable settlement,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44867 of 2025(5) dt.21-01-2026
6/6
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…