Patna High Court
Diwakar Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The High Court ordered the parties to appear before the District Court for mediation, granted interim pre‑arrest bail, and disposed of the petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Diwakar Kumar Singh, sought protection from arrest in a criminal case filed under Sections 406 and 506 of the IPC concerning an alleged fraudulent land sale. He contended that the dispute was essentially civil, involving breach of a contractual agreement and non‑payment of cheques, and that criminal proceedings were being misused. The State and a co‑respondent opposed the bail but agreed to a possible settlement. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that the matter should first be referred to mediation and that interim protection in the form of pre‑arrest bail could be granted pending the outcome. The court directed the district court to refer the parties to the District Mediation Centre, set conditions for bail, and disposed of the petition.
Issues considered
- The appropriateness of granting pre‑arrest bail in a case under Sections 406 and 506 IPC.
- Whether the criminal complaint is an abuse of process when the underlying dispute is civil in nature.
- Whether the High Court should refer the parties to mediation before proceeding with criminal trial.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 506
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- Section 406 IPC
- Section 506 IPC
- mediation
- civil dispute
- abuse of process
- Section 482 CrPC
- land sale dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69906 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3577 Year-2022 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
Diwakar Kumar Singh S/o- Rishikesh Prasad Singh R/o- Bhilaipur Ps-
Meenapur Dist- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ranvir Singh S/o- Rama Singh R/o- Neerala Nagar Ps- Digha Dist- Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajkumar Rajesh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ajit Kumar, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr.Sachin, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
5 24-02-2026 Heard Mr. Rajkumar Rajesh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned
APP appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. Sachin, learned
counsel for the O.P. No.2.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Complaint Case No. 3577(C) of 2022 registered under
Sections 406 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the allegation made in the complaint,
petitioner entered into an agreement with the complainant to sell
land measuring 6 bighas 10 kathas 6.921 dhurs at Rs. 1,49,000/-
per katha, representing it to be his purchased land, and received
Rs. 40,00,000/- (including Rs. 25,00,000/- as advance), but
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69906 of 2025(5) dt.24-02-2026
2/6
executed a sale deed for only 10 kathas. Subsequently, the
complainant allegedly learnt that the accused had entered into
agreements with third parties in respect of the remaining land on
the basis of false and fabricated documents. Upon request for
execution of the sale deed for the balance land or refund of the
amount, the petitioner refused and allegedly threatened the
complainant with dire consequences.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has
falsely been implicated in the case. The criminal proceedings
arising out of Complaint Case No. 3577(C)/2022, in which
cognizance was taken under Sections 406 and 506 IPC, have
been initiated without proper appreciation of facts and in misuse
of the criminal process. Learned counsel further submitted that
the agreement in question was executed under due authority of
the landowner and the dispute, even if taken at its face value,
pertains purely to alleged non-compliance of contractual
obligations and recovery of money. A settlement dated
25.05.2022 was arrived at in the presence of witnesses, pursuant
to which 160 dismil of land valued at Rs. 55,00,000/- was
executed in favour of the complainant/his nominees, though
only Rs. 35,00,000/- has been paid, and the balance of Rs.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69906 of 2025(5) dt.24-02-2026
3/6
25,00,000/- was agreed to be paid through cheques. Learned
counsel submitted that despite executing land of higher value on
credit basis and relying upon the complainant’s assurance, the
complainant failed to honour the cheques and complete the
transaction for the remaining land within the stipulated period.
In view of the dishonour of the cheques issued towards the
balance consideration amounting to Rs. 25,00,000/-, the
petitioner filed Complaint Case No. 3028/2022 before the
competent court, Muzaffarpur. The initiation of the present
criminal proceeding by the complainant, despite the pendency
of the aforesaid case arising out of the same transaction, is mala
fide. 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. Per contra, learned APP appearing on behalf of the
State and learned counsel for the O.P. no.2 jointly submitted that
a chance be given to the parties for amicable settlement outside
the court.
6. 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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69906 of 2025(5) dt.24-02-2026
4/6
on 12.03.2026.
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 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.
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
proposition in recent judgment of S. N. Vijayalakshmi & Ors.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69906 of 2025(5) dt.24-02-2026
5/6
vrs. The State of Karnataka and Anr. reported in (2025) SCC
Online SC 1575.
12. The parties have willingly desired to appear
before the learned District Court on or before 12.03.2026, 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 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.
16. In case of failure on the part of the petitioners to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69906 of 2025(5) dt.24-02-2026
6/6
appear on 12.03.2026 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.
17. In case, it is deliberate on the part of the
complainant to reconcile, then in that case, the interim
protection granted to the petitioners 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,
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.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
U T
Checking your session…