Patna High Court
Lakshman SahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The High Court granted interim pre‑arrest bail conditioned on the parties appearing before the District Court for mediation and directed that the matter be referred to the District Mediation Centre.
Summary
The petitioners, five relatives from Samastipur, were charged under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act for allegedly cheating the informant by taking ₹10 lakh for a marriage that was later revealed to be fraudulent. They applied for pre‑arrest bail, arguing that the dispute is essentially civil and should be settled through mediation. The State opposed the bail but agreed to a possible amicable settlement. The High Court, invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC and citing Supreme Court precedents, directed that the parties appear before the District Court for mediation and granted interim pre‑arrest bail conditioned on compliance with the mediation process. The court ordered that if a settlement is reached, the criminal case be withdrawn; otherwise, the bail may be revoked.
Issues considered
- Whether the alleged fraud constitutes a criminal offence warranting pre‑arrest detention or is a civil dispute disguised as a crime.
- Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to stay the criminal proceedings in favour of mediation.
- Whether pre‑arrest bail should be granted pending mediation under the circumstances.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 316(2), 318(4), 3(5)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 420
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- mediation
- cheating
- criminal breach of trust
- Section 482 CrPC
- civil dispute
- Indian Penal Code
- settlement
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68671 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-285 Year-2025 Thana- GORAUL District- Vaishali
======================================================
1. Lakshman Sah S/O Vilat Sah @ Viltu Sah Resident of village - Madhopur,
Dighrua, P.S- Tajpur, Dist.- Samastipur.
2. Brajesh Sah @ Brijesh Sah @Brajesh Kumar S/O Laxman Sah Resident of
village - Madhopur, Dighrua, P.S- Tajpur, Dist.- Samastipur.
3. Sangam Kumari W/O Brajesh Sah @ Brijesh Sah Resident of village -
Madhopur, Dighrua, P.S- Tajpur, Dist.- Samastipur.
4. Dr. Rajesh Kumar S/O Laxman Sah Resident of village - Madhopur,
Dighrua, P.S- Tajpur, Dist.- Samastipur.
5. Amresh Kumar S/O Laxman Sah Resident of village - Madhopur, Dighrua,
P.S- Tajpur, Dist.- Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Mahesh Kumar S/O-Late Ram Narayan Sah, R/O-Ramdaspur, p/o-Shondha,
P/S-Goraul, District-Vaishali
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pawan Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Ravish Mishra, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 20-02-2026 Heard Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners; Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh,
learned APP for the State and Mr. Ravish Mishra, learned
counsel for the Informant.
2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection
with Gorakul P.S. Case No. 285/2025 registered for the
offence(s) punishable under Sections 316(2),318(4),3(5), of the
BNS.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68671 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
2/7
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the
petitioners committed a fraud with the informant by inducing
him to pay ₹10 lakh for a proposed marriage by falsely
representing that the petitioner no.4 (Dr. Rajesh Kumar) was
unmarried.
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Informant
(Mahesh Kumar) arranged his daughter’s marriage with the
petitioner no.4 (Dr. Rajesh Kumar), son of the petitioner no.1
(Laxman Sah), after being informed that the petitioner no.4 was
a doctor and unmarried. It is claimed that petitioner no.1 and his
son petitioner no.4 received ₹10 lakh from the informant for the
marriage, and the informant spent an additional ₹7–8 lakh on
preparations. Thereafter, the police informed the informant that
petitioner no.4 was already married and the informant was
allegedly threatened by petitioner no.1, when he called to
inquire about the same.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they
have falsely been implicated in the case. He further submitted
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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68671 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
3/7
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. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners, on instructions, submitted that the petitioners have
agreed to appear before the learned District Court at 10:30 A.M.
on 17.03.2026.
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, 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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68671 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
4/7
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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68671 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
5/7
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
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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68671 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
6/7
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."
13. The petitioners have willingly desired to appear
before the learned District Court on or before 17.03.2026, so
that the matter can be referred to the District Mediation Centre.
14. 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.
15. 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 petitioners in connection with the aforesaid
case.
16. 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 petitioners are
required to be released on pre-arrest bail on such terms and
conditions as the learned District Court deems it fit and proper.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68671 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
7/7
17. In case of failure on the part of the petitioners to
appear on 17.03.2026 before the learned District Court or any
date fixed by the learned Mediator, the interim protection
granted to the petitioners shall automatically lose its force.
18. In case, it is deliberate on the part of the
informant to reconcile, then in that case, the interim protection
granted to the petitioners shall continue and the trial shall
proceed in accordance with law.
19. 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.
20. If both the parties arrive at amicable settlement,
then they must withdraw the criminal cases, if any, which they
have lodged against each other.
21. With aforesaid direction and observation, the
present application stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
U T
Checking your session…