Patna High Court
Rajdeo BhagatversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The Court directed the parties to attempt mediation and granted interim pre‑arrest bail, conditioning its continuation on the outcome of the mediation process.
Summary
The petitioner, Rajdeo Bhagat, applied for pre‑arrest bail in a complaint alleging offences under IPC Sections 420, 406 and 506, arising from a dispute over a Rs 3.70 lakh loan. The complainant claimed the petitioner failed to return the money and threatened him. Both parties expressed a desire to settle the matter amicably through community mediation and agreed to appear before the District Court. The High Court, citing the Supreme Court’s guidance on civil disputes cloaked as criminal cases, directed that the parties be referred to the District Mediation Centre and granted interim pre‑arrest bail, subject to conditions and a timeline. The Court ordered that if mediation succeeds, the criminal case be withdrawn; if it fails, the bail will continue under terms set by the District Court. The application was consequently disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the criminal complaint, which primarily involves a monetary dispute, should be entertained as a criminal proceeding or referred to mediation.
- Whether pre‑arrest bail can be granted pending mediation in a case involving alleged offences under Sections 420, 406 and 506 IPC.
- Whether the High Court may exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to stay or direct the conduct of the proceedings.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 420, 506
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- mediation
- civil dispute
- criminal breach of trust
- cheating
- Section 420 IPC
- Section 406 IPC
- Section 506 IPC
- Section 482 CrPC
- Mediation Act 2023
- settlement
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80550 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1969 Year-2023 Thana- SARAN COMPLAINT CASE District-
Saran
======================================================
Rajdeo Bhagat Son of Late Amirkhan Bhagat @ American Bhagat @
Amirkan Bhagat Resident of Village- Ladaura Ps- Kudhani (Turki O.P), Dist-
Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Jivesh Kumar Son of Late Basant Lal Singh Resident of Village- Saidpur,
Po- Rahimpur, P.S.- Sonepur, Dist- Rampur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ravindra Kumar, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Abhay Kumar, APP.
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
6 04-05-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner; learned counsel for the complainant and learned APP
for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Complaint Case No. 1969/2023 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 506 of the Indian Penal
Code.
3. As per the allegation made in the complaint, the
complainant is said to have paid a sum of Rs. 3,70,000/- to the
petitioner, partly in cash and partly through a bank account,
towards a loan. Subsequently, when the complainant requested
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80550 of 2025(6) dt.04-05-2026
2/7
the petitioner to return the same, the petitioner allegedly failed
to do so and instead abused the complainant and threatened to
kill him.
4. Mr. Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the complainant jointly informs this
Court that the Mediator of this Court could not take effective
measures to issue notice to the complainant with due diligence,
as such mediation could not take place between the parties.
Today, they inform that they have received instruction from
their respective clients that the parties want to settle the dispute
amicably outside the Court and for that the matter which
primarily relates to monetary transaction be referred for
mediation.
5. 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
15.05.2026.
6. Heard the parties.
7. Having considered the rival submissions made on
behalf of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegation
made in the complaint, I am of the opinion that the parties may
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80550 of 2025(6) dt.04-05-2026
3/7
proceed to settle their dispute amicably by way of community
mediation. In case, the parties fail to do so, then in that case, the
parties may settle their dispute by way of mediation in
accordance with Mediation Act, 2023 by approaching the
learned District Court.
8. 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)
9. 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.
10. The Apex Court while considering the content of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80550 of 2025(6) dt.04-05-2026
4/7
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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80550 of 2025(6) dt.04-05-2026
5/7
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.
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."
11. Both the parties have willingly desired to appear
before the learned District Court on or before 15.05.2026, so
that the matter can be referred to the District Mediation Centre.
12. 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”.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80550 of 2025(6) dt.04-05-2026
6/7
13. 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 petitioner in connection with the
aforesaid case.
14. 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.
15. In case of failure on the part of the petitioner to
appear on or before 15.05.2026 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.
16. In case, it is deliberate on the part of the
complainant to reconcile, then in that case, the interim
protection granted to the petitioner shall continue and the trial
shall proceed in accordance with law.
17. In case, the parties fail to reconcile, then in that
case, parties may avail appropriate remedy. Then also, petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80550 of 2025(6) dt.04-05-2026
7/7
is directed to be released on pre-arrest bail on such terms and
conditions as the learned District Court deems it fit and proper.
18. If both the parties arrive at amicable settlement,
then they must withdraw the criminal cases, if any, which they
have lodged against each other.
19. With aforesaid direction and observation, the
present application stands disposed of.
20. 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…