Patna High Court

Ranju DeviversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 2 April 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: PURNENDU SINGH

Holding

The dispute is predominantly civil and lacks criminal intent, so pre‑arrest bail is granted with directions for mediation.

Summary

Ranju Devi applied for pre‑arrest bail in a complaint (No. 438(C) of 2022) alleging offences under IPC sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) for allegedly executing fraudulent sale deeds of joint family land. The complainant had already obtained a decree in a related title suit (No. 159 of 2022) and the petitioner offered to pay Rs 1,00,000 to settle the civil claim. Both parties expressed willingness to resolve the matter through mediation. The High Court held that the dispute is essentially civil, lacking the requisite criminal intent, and therefore ordered the grant of pre‑arrest bail subject to mediation. The court directed the district court to refer the matter to the Mediation Centre and stipulated that bail would continue only if the parties cooperate in the settlement process.

Issues considered

Whether the complaint discloses a cognizable criminal offence warranting denial of pre‑arrest bail
Whether the alleged acts under Sections 406 and 420 IPC constitute criminal intent or are essentially civil in nature
Whether the High Court may quash or stay criminal proceedings in favour of a civil remedy

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 406, 420, 467, 468, 471

Subjects

pre‑arrest bail
civil dispute
mediation
criminal breach of trust
cheating
IPC sections 406, 420
Section 482 CrPC
abuse of process

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.584 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-438 Year-2022 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE - DANAPUR
District- Patna
======================================================
Ranju Devi Wife of Mithlesh Kumar @ Mithilesh Kr. R/o Shahar Rampur,
P.S.- Piplama (Naubatpur), District - Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Akhilesh Kumar Son of Janak Singh R/o Village - Shahar Rampur, P.S.-
Piplama (Naubatpur), District - Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ghanshyam Tiwary, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr.Praveen Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Md. Ataur Rahman
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER

3 02-04-2026 Heard Mr. Ghanshyam Tiwary, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Praveen Kumar,

learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Ataur Rahman,

learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection

with Complaint Case No. 438(C) of 2022, registered for the

offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471,

120(B) of IPC.

3. As per the allegations made in the complaint

petition, the wife of the petitioner is stated to have sold 8.25

decimals and 11.54 decimals of land, which allegedly included

the share of the complainant.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.584 of 2026(3) dt.02-04-2026
2/8

petitioner submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is

that he has fraudulently executed two sale deeds dated

25.11.2021 and 16.12.2021 in respect of joint family property,

whereby land measuring 11.54 decimals and 8.24 decimals

respectively were sold including the share of the complainant in

the said plots. It is further submitted that the complainant with

an oblique motive and in order to put undue pressure upon the

petitioner has instituted the present complaint case, despite

having already filed Title Suit No. 159 of 2022 in respect of the

same subject matter i.e. the aforesaid sale deeds. The said title

suit has already been decreed in favour of the complainant vide

judgment and decree dated 12.01.2024. In view of the admitted

position, learned counsel submits that the petitioner is now only

liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant.

5. Per contra, Mr. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel

has tendered his appearance on behalf of the complainant and

submitted that from the very beginning, the petitioner had the

intention to commit fraud and deprive the complainant of his

legitimate share in the ancestral property. He further submits

that the petitioner, being the wife of the complainant’s brother,

had no authority to execute the sale deeds in respect of the

ancestral property, and as such, the ingredients of Section 420 of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.584 of 2026(3) dt.02-04-2026
3/8

the IPC are clearly made out, therefore, the petitioner does not

deserve the privilege of pre-arrest bail. However, he fairly

admits that Title Suit No. 159 of 2022 has already been decreed

in favour of the complainant. He further submits that

considering the relationship between the parties, the

complainant is willing to maintain peace in the family and is

agreeable to resolve the dispute through mediation.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner also submits, on instructions, that the petitioner is

ready and willing to settle the dispute amicably through the

process of mediation.

7. Considering the aforesaid submissions and

willingness of the parties to resolve the dispute amicably on

mutually agreed terms, particularly in light of the judgment and

decree passed in Title Suit No. 159 of 2022, which the petitioner

does not intend to challenge in appeal and further taking into

account the petitioner is ready to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to

the complainant, this Court is of the opinion that the matter is

predominantly civil in nature and lacks the essential ingredients

of criminal intent. Accordingly, the dispute appears to be fit for

settlement through mediation.

8. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.584 of 2026(3) dt.02-04-2026
4/8

submitted that a chance be given to the parties for amicable

settlement outside the court.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioners, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner has

agreed to appear before the learned District Court at 10:30 A.M.

on 15.04.2026.

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 complaint petition, I am of the opinion that 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.584 of 2026(3) dt.02-04-2026
5/8

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,

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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.584 of 2026(3) dt.02-04-2026
6/8

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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.584 of 2026(3) dt.02-04-2026
7/8

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 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

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 petitioners 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.584 of 2026(3) dt.02-04-2026
8/8

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 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,

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)
chn/-

U T .

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…