Patna High Court
Ranju Devi @ Rinju DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The court held that, given the parties’ willingness to settle the land dispute amicably, the proceedings should be stayed and the petitioners granted pre‑arrest bail, with the matter referred to the District Mediation Centre.
Summary
Ranju Devi and Sipahi Yadav sought protection from arrest in a case (PS Yogapatti Case No. 340 of 2025) involving multiple sections of the Bihar Negotiable Statutes, alleging they were falsely implicated in a land‑related dispute. The prosecution alleged assault, attempt to outrage modesty and other offences, while the petitioners claimed innocence and expressed willingness to settle the dispute amicably. The court, referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Naushey Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) 4 SCC 78, held that the matter could be resolved through mediation and that proceeding with trial would be futile. Accordingly, the court directed the petitioners to appear before the District Court and the District Mediation Centre, granting interim protection and pre‑arrest bail pending settlement. The application was disposed with directions for mediation and possible withdrawal of criminal cases upon amicable settlement.
Issues considered
- The appropriateness of granting pre‑arrest bail and interim protection to the petitioners pending an amicable settlement.
- Whether the serious charges, including sections analogous to attempt to murder, can be stayed on account of a private settlement.
- Whether the court may refer the criminal dispute to mediation under the principles laid down by the Apex Court.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Statutes (BNS) — s. 109(1), 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 352, 74
- Indian Penal Code (IPC) — s. 149, 307, 326
Subjects
- amicable settlement
- pre‑arrest bail
- mediation
- criminal procedure
- land dispute
- quashing proceedings
- Section 307 IPC
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89344 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-340 Year-2025 Thana- JOGAPATTI District- West Champaran
======================================================
1. Ranju Devi @ Rinju Devi, (Female), aged about 45 years, wife of Sipahi
Yadav
2. Sipahi Yadav, (Male), aged about 46 years, son of Banarsi Yadav,
Both are Resident of village- Darwalia, Ps- Yogapatti, Dist- West
Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manaur Alam, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 28-01-2026 Heard Mr. Manaur Alam, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Jitendra Kumar
Singh, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Yogapatti P.S. Case No. 340 of 2025 registered under
Sections 115(2), 126(2), 118(1), 303(2), 74, 109(1), 352 and
3(5) of the BNS.
3. The prosecution's story in brief is that petitioners
along with other accused persons had assaulted the informant
causing head injury and had also tried to outrage the modesty of
the informant.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89344 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
2/7
petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they
have falsely been implicated in the present case. Both the parties
were involved in free fight with respect to a piece of land.
However, learned counsel submitted that both the parties are
next door neighbour and dispute, which primarily relates to
allegation under Section 109 BNSS, can be resolved by way of
amicable settlement outside the Court in light of the law laid
down by the Apex Court in the case of Naushey Ali & Ors. Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2025) 4 SCC 78.
5. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State
submitted that a chance be given to the parties for amicable
settlement outside the court.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, on instructions, submitted that the petitioners have
agreed to appear before the learned District Court at 10:30 A.M.
on 17.02.2026.
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 FIR, 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.89344 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
3/7
9. In this regard, I find it apt to take note of the
observation made by the Apex Court recently in case of
Naushey Ali (supra), in paragraph nos. 11 to 20, which are
reproduced hereinafter:
“11. Before we apply this judgment to
the facts, it will be worthwhile to recall the
observations of Sikri, J. in Narinder Singh
(supra):-
"26. Having said so, we would hasten to add that
though it is a serious offence as the accused
person(s) attempted to take the life of another
person/victim, at the same time the court cannot be
oblivious to hard realities that many times whenever
there is a quarrel between the parties leading to
physical commotion and sustaining of injury by
either or both the parties, there is a tendency to give
it a slant of an offence under Section 307 IPC as
well..."
(Emphasis supplied)
12. Coming back to Laxmi Narayan (supra), this
Court has held that mere mention of Section 307
IPC in the FIR or the charge-sheet should not be the
basis for adopting a hands-off approach. It has
further held that it would be open for the court to
examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307
IPC is there for the sake of it or whether there is
evidence to back it. It has been held that the courts
may go by the nature of injuries sustained; as to
whether the injuries are inflicted on the vital/
delicate parts of the body and the nature of weapon
used. It has also been clarified that such an exercise
would be permissible after investigation and filing
of chargesheet/framing of charges or during the
trial. [See 15.4 of Laxmi Narayan (supra)].
13. Coming to the facts of the case, admittedly, there
is a settlement between the parties. The case filed by
the appellants' party which was prior in point of
time and that too on the same day of occurrence,
has been settled.
14. It should be recalled that, at the outset, after
investigation, the police actually closed the case in
its final report of 07.09.1991. It was the trial Court,
which by its order of 05.09.1992, refused to accept
the same and summoned the appellants. The
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89344 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
4/7
incident is of 11.08.1991, i.e. about 33½ years back.
No doubt, there is a reference to the firing in the FIR
but admittedly there was no injury. The allegation is
that firing was done by Abdul Waris. He is since
deceased. The facts, assuming to be true, also do not
make out a case of common object for the appellants
under Section 149 IPC insofar as the offence of
Section 307 is concerned.
15. The role attributed to the seven members,
including the five appellants is not specific. General
allegation was that they abused in filthy language
and assaulted Mahmood with lathi and iron bars.
The specific individual role was only attributed to
Adbul Waris, who is since deceased.
16. In any event, the police who investigated
disbelieved the entire story. No recoveries have been
made of any pellets. What engaged the attention of
the High Court was only the fracture of the head of
the distal phalanx of left finger of respondent No.2.
17. We have seen the injuries sustained by
Mahmood (R-2) from the medical evidence
collected. From the injury report, it is clear that
while the first four injuries were contusions and
abrasions, injury Nos. 5, 6 and 7 pertained to
incised lacerated wound and swelling on the middle
finger of the left hand. We have also seen the x-ray
report which shows that in the left hand there was a
fracture of the head of distal phalanx of left ring
finger. Assuming that this was the result of injury
with lathis or iron bar, applying the test in Laxmi
Narayan (supra), considering the injury and the
nature of the weapon used, certainly no offence
under Section 307 IPC is made out.
18. Section 307 of IPC reads as under:-
"307. Attempt to murder.-
Whoever does any act with such intention or
knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he
by that act caused death, he would be guilty of
murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt
is caused to any person by such act, the offender
shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to
such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
Attempts by life convicts.- When any person
offending under this section is under sentence of
imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be
punished with death."
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89344 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
5/7
19. Keeping in mind the surrounding circumstances,
the nature of the weapon and the nature of the
injury, on facts, we are inclined to conclude that the
overt act attributed to the appellants does not bring
the case within the four corners of the Section 307
of IPC, either on a stand-alone basis or as held
above with the aid of Section 149 of IPC.
20. We are also inclined to conclude that
considering the overall circumstances, the nature of
the weapon and the nature of the injury (fracture of
the head of distal phalanx of left ring finger), the
offence alleged, on facts, does not fall in that
category of cases where the court should deny relief
in the event of a settlement. At the highest, the
offence alleged could be one under Section 326 of
IPC. It could not be said, on facts, considering all
the circumstances that this is a crime which has
such an harmful effect on the public and that it has
the effect of seriously threatening the well-being of
the society. We make it clear that we are saying so
on the facts of the present case. We are also firmly of
the opinion that proceeding with the trial, when
parties have amicably resolved the dispute in the
present case, would be futile and the ends of justice
require that the settlement be given effect to by
quashing the proceedings. It would be a grave abuse
of process to let this trial remain pending under the
above circumstances, particularly when the dispute
is settled and resolved.”
10. The petitioners have willingly desired to appear
before the learned District Court on or before 17.02.2026, so
that the matter can be referred to the District Mediation Centre.
11. Learned District Court is directed to take
necessary steps to issue notices to the respective parties and
upon their appearance, 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 2.0.
12. Learned Mediator of the District Mediation Center
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89344 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
6/7
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.
13. 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, 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.
14. In case of failure on the part of the petitioner to
appear on 17.02.2026 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.
15. 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.
16. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89344 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
7/7
terms and conditions as the learned District Court deems it fit
and proper.
17. If both the parties arrive at amicable settlement,
then they must withdraw the criminal cases, if any, which they
have lodged against each other.
18. With aforesaid direction and observation, the
present application stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Niraj/-
U T
Checking your session…