Patna High Court
Sanjeet KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The High Court held that where the dispute is essentially civil and the parties consent to mediation, pre‑arrest bail may be granted and criminal proceedings can be stayed pending settlement.
Summary
The petitioner, Sanjeet Kumar, sought pre‑arrest bail in a complaint alleging cheating, criminal breach of trust and dishonour of cheques under IPC §§420, 406 and NI Act §138. The dispute arose from a vehicle sale agreement where post‑dated cheques issued by the petitioner were dishonoured. Both parties agreed to appear before the District Court for mediation on 19‑02‑2026. The High Court, citing the Supreme Court’s observations in Paramjeet Batra and S.N. Vijayalakshmi, held that the matter is essentially a civil transaction and directed that mediation be pursued, granting interim pre‑arrest bail subject to the parties’ appearance and settlement. The court ordered the District Court to facilitate mediation and stipulated that bail would continue unless the petitioner fails to appear or the dispute remains unresolved, after which appropriate remedies may be sought.
Issues considered
- Whether pre‑arrest bail should be granted in a case involving alleged cheating and dishonour of cheques.
- Whether the dispute is essentially civil and can be referred to mediation, warranting a stay of criminal proceedings.
- Whether the High Court can invoke its powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process in such matters.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 420
- Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 138
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- mediation
- civil dispute
- cheating
- dishonour of cheque
- Section 482 CrPC
- abuse of process
- criminal complaint
- settlement
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45927 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-181 Year-2022 Thana- GAYA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Gaya
======================================================
Sanjeet Kumar S/o Vijay Kumar @ Bijay Kumar R/O Village-Patel Nagar
North, Islampur, PS-Islampur, Distt-Nalanda At present R/o Mohalla-
Sadabahar Colony, Gaya Rajauli Road, Bhusanda, P.S.- Muffasil, District-
Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Anuj Kumar Gupta S/O Krishna Kumar Gupta R/O Mohalla-Janakpur, PO-
Buniyadganj, PS-MUffasil, Distt-Gaya
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Binod Murari Mishra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rabindra Kumar, APP
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Lokesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 21-01-2026 Heard Mr. Binod Murari Mishra, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Rabindra Kumar,
learned APP for the State and Mr. Lokesh Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with complaint Case No. 181 of 2022 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code
and Section 138 of N.I. Act.
3. As per the allegations made in complaint, the
informant entered into an agreement with the petitioner on
21.10.2021 for the sale of his Hyva vehicle for a total
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45927 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
2/5
consideration of Rs.8,60,000/-. The petitioner paid Rs.1,00,000/-
in cash and Rs.1,00,000/- through cheque at the time of
execution of the agreement. The petitioner further handed over
two post-dated cheques to the complainant for amounts of
Rs.3,10,000/- and Rs.3,50,000/-. However, upon presentation,
both cheques were dishonoured, forcing the complainant to file
the present complaint.
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 may be referred for
mediation.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State,
opposing the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail submitted that
an opportunity may be given to the parties to resolve their
dispute amicably outside the Court.
6. 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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45927 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
3/5
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 primarily the parties
are aggrieved with certain transaction of money and 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45927 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
4/5
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 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.
12. 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 2.0.
13. 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 four 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 referred hereinabove, the petitioner is
required to be released on pre-arrest bail on such terms and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45927 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
5/5
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 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.
16. 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.
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. If both the parties arrive at amicable settlement,
then they must withdraw the criminal cases, if any, which they
have lodged against each other.
19. With aforesaid direction and observation, the
present application stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…