Patna High Court
Jai Prakash @ Sri Jai Prakash Jee @ Jai Prakash KushwahaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The court granted interim protection and directed mediation, ordering pre‑arrest bail on such terms and conditions as the District Court may deem fit.
Summary
The petitioner, Jai Prakash, applied for pre‑arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging that a cheque of Rs.2.5 lakh issued by him was dishonoured. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner had obtained the cheque by purchasing chicken chicks and then failed to pay, causing loss to the informant. Both parties expressed willingness to settle the dispute through mediation and agreed to appear before the District Court. The High Court, citing Supreme Court precedents on the distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating and the need to prevent abuse of process, directed that the matter be referred to the District Mediation Centre and granted interim protection to the petitioner, ordering pre‑arrest bail on conditions set by the District Court. The application was disposed with directions for mediation and conditional bail.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest bail for offences under Sections 406, 420 IPC and Section 138 NI Act.
- Whether the dispute is essentially civil in nature and should be resolved through mediation rather than criminal prosecution.
- Whether the High Court may exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to stay criminal proceedings in favor of settlement.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 420
- Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 138
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- cheque bounce
- criminal breach of trust
- cheating
- mediation
- civil dispute
- Section 406 IPC
- Section 420 IPC
- Section 138 NI Act
- Section 482 CrPC
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75537 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-171 Year-2018 Thana- RAMGARHWA District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Jai Prakash @ Sri Jai Prakash Jee @ Jai Prakash Kushwaha S/o Manager
Prasad R/o Village- Gariba, P.O.- Gariba, P.S.- Kalyanpur, District- East
Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Tarik Ahmed son of late Mumtaj Ahmed Resident of village, po, and Ps-
Ramgadhwa, Dist- East Champaran
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Krishna Kant Singh, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Harendra Prasad, APP.
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Prateek Tandon, Advocate.
Mr. Rohit Ranjan, Advocate.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 24-06-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner; learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the
O.P. No.2.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Ramgarhwa P.S. Case No. 171 of 2018 registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 138 of N.I. Act.
3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that after purchasing
chicken chicks from the informant, the petitioner issued a
cheque of Rs. 2,50,000/- towards payment, which was
dishonoured due to insufficient funds, and despite repeated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75537 of 2025(4) dt.24-06-2026
2/7
demands, failed to clear the outstanding amount, thereby
causing financial loss to the informant and leading to the
institution of the case.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has
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.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. No. 2
and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State jointly
submitted that a chance be given to the parties for amicable
settlement outside the court.
6. 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 or before
14.07.2026.
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75537 of 2025(4) dt.24-06-2026
3/7
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.
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,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75537 of 2025(4) dt.24-06-2026
4/7
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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75537 of 2025(4) dt.24-06-2026
5/7
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. Both the parties have willingly desired to appear
before the learned District Court on or before 14.07.2026, 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75537 of 2025(4) dt.24-06-2026
6/7
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 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 or before 14.07.2026 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 O.P. No.2
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,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75537 of 2025(4) dt.24-06-2026
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
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.