Patna High Court
Sanjay Kumar Golwara @ Sanjay Kumar GolvaraversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The High Court ordered interim pre‑arrest bail and directed the parties to pursue mediation before the District Court, with bail protection contingent on compliance.
Summary
The petitioners, Sanjay Kumar Golwara and Rajeev Goyal, were charged under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act for allegedly receiving a Rs 10 lakh advance for a sale deed that was never executed, though they claim the amount was returned. They applied for pre‑arrest bail, asserting the matter is essentially a monetary dispute and seeking mediation. The State opposed the bail but also agreed to mediation. The High Court, citing Supreme Court precedents on the cautious use of Section 482 CrPC and the distinction between civil disputes and criminal offences, directed the parties to appear before the District Court for mediation and granted interim protection (pre‑arrest bail) subject to conditions. The Court ordered the District Mediation Centre to facilitate settlement and stipulated that the bail protection would lapse if the parties failed to appear, while also directing withdrawal of criminal cases if an amicable settlement is reached. The application was consequently disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the allegations under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act constitute a cognizable criminal offence or a civil dispute.
- Whether pre‑arrest bail should be granted pending mediation.
- Whether the High Court can direct mediation under its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 316(2), 318(4)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 420
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- mediation
- civil dispute
- criminal breach of trust
- cheating
- Section 482 CrPC
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act
- alternative dispute resolution
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70336 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-139 Year-2025 Thana- TARIYANI CHOWK District- Sheohar
======================================================
1. Sanjay Kumar Golwara @ Sanjay Kumar Golvara S/o Murlidhar Prasad @
Murlidhar Golwara R/o Village- House No. 77, Sadawarti, P.S. and District-
Ajamgarh (U.P.)
2. Rajeev Goyal S/o Murlidhar Prasad @ Murlidhar Golwara R/o Village-
House No. 77, Sadawarti, P.S. and District- Ajamgarh (U.P.)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Pritam Ratnesh Agarwal S/o Ratnesh Krishndev Agarwal R/o Village-
Salempur, P.S.- Tariyani, District- Sheohar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Jain, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Suman Kumari Singh, APP.
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Dinesh Jha, Advocate.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 24-02-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the
O.P. No.2.
2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection
with Tariyani P.S. Case No. 139 of 2025 registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the
BNS.
3. As per the allegation made in the F.I.R., informant
is said to have paid Rs.10,00,000/- towards advance to the
petitioners for execution of a sale deed in favour of the
informant, but neither the sale deed was executed nor the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70336 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
2/7
amount paid to the petitioners was returned to him.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners, at the outset, submits that the petitioners are still
agree to return back the amount as claimed by the informant. 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 counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.
No.2 also to buy peace of mind submits that the matter be
referred for mediation for amicable settlement of dispute outside
the court.
6. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the
parties, on instruction, submitted that the parties have agreed to
appear before the learned District Court at 10:30 A.M. on
16.03.2026.
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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70336 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
3/7
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.
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70336 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
4/7
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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70336 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
5/7
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 parties have willingly desired to appear
before the learned District Court on or before 16.03.2026, 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70336 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
6/7
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
appear on 16.03.2026 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 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.
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,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70336 of 2025(3) dt.24-02-2026
7/7
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)
mantreshwar/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.