Patna High Court
Anoj KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The High Court held that because the dispute is essentially civil, the parties must be given an opportunity to settle through mediation before any pre‑arrest bail is granted, and interim protection is conditioned on their appearance before the District Court.
Summary
The petitioner, Anoj Kumar, applied for pre‑arrest bail in a complaint alleging offences under Sections 380, 420, 406, 408, 467, 468, 471 and 504 IPC relating to alleged misappropriation of land documents and fraudulent loan. The State opposed the bail, while the petitioner claimed innocence and sought an amicable settlement. The Court observed that the dispute appears to be essentially civil, involving monetary transactions, and cited Supreme Court precedents emphasizing the need to prevent abuse of criminal process in such cases. Accordingly, the Court directed the petitioner to appear before the District Court and referred the matter to the District Mediation Centre, granting interim protection pending mediation. The application was disposed with directions that bail may be granted by the District Court if the parties reconcile, and that coercive action be stayed until then.
Issues considered
- Whether pre‑arrest bail should be granted in a case involving alleged criminal breach of trust and cheating under the IPC.
- Whether the dispute is essentially civil in nature and therefore amenable to mediation rather than criminal prosecution.
- Whether the High Court can, under Section 482 CrPC, intervene to stay coercive action pending settlement.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 380, 406, 408, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504
- Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- criminal breach of trust
- cheating
- mediation
- civil dispute
- Section 482 CrPC
- SARFAESI Act
- Indian Penal Code
- high court
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62452 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2624 Year-2023 Thana- EAST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT
District- East Champaran
======================================================
Anoj Kumar S/o- Rajendra Singh Resident of Village - Matiariya Hata Tola,
P.S. - Harsidhi, District - East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Bachchi Devi W/o- Chhotan Singh Moh- Sri Krishna Nagar (Gayatri Nagar)
Ps- Town Motihari Dist- East Champaran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Madhurendra Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Tapeshwar Sharma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
5 11-02-2026 Heard Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Tapeshwar
Sharma, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Complaint Case No. C-2624 of 2023 registered for the
offence(s) punishable under Sections 380, 420, 406, 408, 467,
468, 471, 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that, the complainant
(aunt of the petitioner) filed Complaint Case No. 2624/2023
alleging that she purchased land in 1997 and built a three-storey
house where the petitioner and his family have been residing
since 2014 with her permission. The complainant alleges that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62452 of 2025(5) dt.11-02-2026
2/7
while she was mostly living in Patna, the petitioner took her
land documents and passbook from her locker without her
consent. It is further alleged that the petitioner along with other
accused mortgaged her property documents to obtain a loan of
₹55,00,000 from Punjab National Bank in the name of “Nehal
Poultry Farm,” which later became NPA. Complainant received
notice under the SARFAESI Act and her house was sealed, and
she had to pay ₹53,33,132, while the petitioner paid only a part
amount. The complainant has also lodged FIR against the
petitioner in connection with Motihari Town P.S. Case no.199 of
2024.
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. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62452 of 2025(5) dt.11-02-2026
3/7
agreed to appear before the learned District Court at 10:30 A.M.
on 18.02.2026.
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 FIR, 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
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.62452 of 2025(5) dt.11-02-2026
4/7
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.
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62452 of 2025(5) dt.11-02-2026
5/7
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
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 18.02.2026, so
that the matter can be referred to the District Mediation Centre.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62452 of 2025(5) dt.11-02-2026
6/7
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
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 18.02.2026 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62452 of 2025(5) dt.11-02-2026
7/7
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.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
U T
Checking your session…