Patna High Court
Purushottam Kumar @ Purushottam Kumar MishraversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The High Court ordered the release of the petitioner on pre‑arrest bail, subject to mediation and the conditions prescribed by the District Court.
Summary
The petitioner, Purushottam Kumar, sought pre‑arrest bail in a complaint alleging cheating in a land sale transaction where the complainant paid Rs 40 lakhs but the sale deed was not executed. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner issued a cheque that was dishonoured and that the sale deed was instead executed in favour of a third party. Both parties expressed a desire to resolve the dispute through mediation, and the court noted that the matter is essentially civil in nature with a criminal texture. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court directed that the parties appear before the District Court for mediation and that the petitioner be released on pre‑arrest bail subject to the outcome of the mediation. The court ordered that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner until the mediation process is completed and the application was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether a pre‑arrest bail can be granted in a case that is primarily a civil dispute with alleged criminal aspects
- Whether proceeding with criminal prosecution would constitute an abuse of process when civil remedies are available
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 316(2), 318(4), 3(5)
- Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 138
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- mediation
- civil dispute
- criminal complaint
- Section 138 NI Act
- abuse of process
- land sale dispute
- settlement
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5284 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-591 Year-2025 Thana- SITAMARHI COMPLAINT CASE
District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Purushottam Kumar @ Purushottam Kumar Mishra Son of Sachidanand
Mishra R/o Village - Marpa Tahir, Ward no. 14, P.S. - Bairgania, Dist. -
Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate
For the Complainant : Mr. Suresh Prasad Bhakta, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Khurshid Anwar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 06-04-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner; learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the
O.P. No.2.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Complaint (C.1) Case No. 591 of 2025 registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 3(5) of the
B.N.S. read with Section 138 of N.I. Act.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the
complainant (Opposite Party No. 2) instituted a complaint case
before the Court of the learned C.J.M., Sitamarhi, alleging
therein that there was a negotiation with the petitioner for
purchase of land measuring 3.5 decimals for a total
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5284 of 2026(4) dt.06-04-2026
2/6
consideration of ₹40,00,000/-. Owing to long-standing cordial
relations between the parties, it was agreed that the accused
would execute the sale deed within 15 days of receipt of the full
consideration amount. It is alleged that, relying upon such
assurance, the complainant had initially paid a sum of
₹15,00,000/- in cash in presence of witnesses, and subsequently
paid the remaining ₹25,00,000/- in presence of witnesses,
thereby making full payment of the agreed consideration
amount. However, despite repeated requests, the accused
persons avoided execution of the sale deed on one pretext or
another. The prosecution further alleges that in February, 2025,
the complainant came to know that the accused had executed a
sale deed in favour of a third party. Upon this, the complainant,
along with witnesses, had approached the accused and
questioned such conduct, whereupon the accused is stated to
have admitted that due to pressure from local influential
persons, the sale deed was not executed in favour of the
complainant and assured that the amount received would be
returned. It is further alleged that the petitioner had given a
cheque amounting to rupees fourty lakhs to the complainant,
which was dishonoured on 13.05.2025 with the endorsement of
insufficient fund.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5284 of 2026(4) dt.06-04-2026
3/6
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and they
have 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.
5. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No.2 jointly
submitted that a chance be given to the parties for amicable
settlement outside the court.
6. The petitioner's counsel informs that he has
received instruction that the petitioner also wants to reconcile
the dispute by way of mediation.
7. Both the parties have agreed to appear before the
learned District Court at 10:30 A.M. on 15.04.2026 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 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.5284 of 2026(4) dt.06-04-2026
4/6
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
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. Both the parties have willingly desired to appear
before the learned District Court on or before 15.04.2026, so
that the matter can be referred to the District Mediation Centre.
13. Learned District Court is directed to take
necessary steps to refer the matter before the learned Mediator
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5284 of 2026(4) dt.06-04-2026
5/6
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 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 15.04.2026 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.
17. 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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5284 of 2026(4) dt.06-04-2026
6/6
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. 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.
21. 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…