Patna High Court
Sandeep AnandversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The High Court held that the matter is essentially a civil dispute and directed mediation, granting conditional pre‑arrest bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Sandeep Anand, was implicated in a complaint under Section 420 IPC alleging cheating in a land sale where the buyer paid Rs.61,51,000 but the sale deed was not executed and a pending title suit was undisclosed. The petitioner argued that the dispute is essentially civil and sought pre‑arrest bail, proposing mediation. The complainant contended that the elements of cheating were established and opposed bail. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that where a civil remedy is available and parties are willing to settle, the criminal proceeding should not be used to abuse process. Accordingly, the Court directed the parties to appear before the District Court for mediation, granted interim pre‑arrest bail subject to conditions, and disposed of the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether the complaint under Section 420 IPC discloses a criminal offence or merely a civil dispute.
- Whether pre‑arrest bail should be granted in a case alleged to involve cheating.
- Whether the High Court can direct mediation and stay coercive action pending settlement.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 420
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- Section 420 IPC
- civil dispute
- mediation
- abuse of process
- Criminal Procedure Code
- settlement
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68939 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-515 Year-2024 Thana- KATIHAR COMPLAINT CASE Dis-
trict- Katihar
======================================================
Sandeep Anand Son of Late Suchindranath Sah @ Suchindra Nath Saha R/o
Naya Tola, Mirchaibari Near Satsang Mandir, P.S. - Sahayak District - Kati-
har.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Zainul Abdin Son of Late Md. Ekramul Haque R/o Village - Hajipur, P.S. -
Muffasil, Dist. - Katihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vinay Ranjan, Advocate
For the Comp. : Mr.Satish Chandra Mishra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Raj Kishor Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 20-02-2026 Heard Mr. Vinay Ranjan, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Satish Chandra Mishra, learned
counsel for the complainant and Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Complaint Case No.515 of 2024, registered under Section
420 of IPC.
3. As per the allegation made in the complaint
petition, the petitioner approached the complainant to sale a
piece of land and the complainant paid Rs.61,51,000/- to the
petitioner as the consideration amount, in the meantime, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68939 of 2025(4) dt.20-02-2026
2/6
petitioner came to know that a Title Suit No.1 of 2023 is
pending in the court of the learned Sub Judge I, Katihar, which
has not been disclosed in the sale-deed.
4. Mr. Vijay Ranjan, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner submitted that from the very nature of
the allegation, which has been alleged against the petitioner, it
appears that the same is of civil dispute and the petitioner is
ready to negotiate with the complainant, as the complainant is
aggrieved by the transaction, which took place between the
parties.
5. Mr. Satish Chandra Mishra, learned counsel, who
has tendered his appearance on behalf of the complainant and
he has submitted that it is admitted fact that after receiving the
consideration amount, the petitioner has not executed the sale
deed in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel further
submitted that the petitioner knowingly has deceived the
complainant and the element of Section 420 IPC is made out
against the petitioner. As such, the petitioner does not deserve to
be released on pre-arrest bail.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that the matter primarily relates to
monetary transaction between the parties and for amicable
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68939 of 2025(4) dt.20-02-2026
3/6
settlement of dispute between the parties outside the Court, the
matter can be referred for mediation.
7. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and
learned counsel for the informant submitted that a chance may
be given for amicable settlement of the dispute outside the
court.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties,
on instructions, submitted that the parties have agreed to appear
before the learned District Court at 10:30 A.M. on 17.03.2026.
9. Heard the parties.
10. 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 op-
portunity is required to be given to the parties to settle their
score amicably outside the Court.
11. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68939 of 2025(4) dt.20-02-2026
4/6
justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal
offence or not depends upon the nature of facts al-
leged 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)
12. 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.
13. The parties have willingly desired to appear
before the learned District Court on 17.03.2026, so that the
matter can be referred to the District Mediation Centre.
14. Learned District Court is directed to take neces-
sary 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”.
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 three months, till then, no coercive action
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68939 of 2025(4) dt.20-02-2026
5/6
shall be taken against the petitioner 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 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.
17. In case of failure on the part of the petitioner 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 petitioner 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 petitioner 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, 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.
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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68939 of 2025(4) dt.20-02-2026
6/6
21. With aforesaid direction and observation, the
present application stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
chn/-
U T
Checking your session…