Patna High Court
Mrigendra Pratap Singh @ Mirgendra Pratap Kuwar @ Mirgendra Pratap SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The Court held that, given the circumstances and the parties' willingness to settle, the criminal proceedings should be referred to mediation and the petitioner granted interim protection.
Summary
The petitioner, Mirgendra Pratap Kuwar, sought protection from arrest in a criminal case (PS Hathua Case No.4 of 2025) involving alleged assault, robbery and theft under several sections of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act. The FIR described an incident where the petitioner’s dog confronted the informant’s son, leading to a violent altercation and theft of a gold chain. The petitioner argued that the matter could be settled amicably, invoking the Supreme Court’s principles in Naushey Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) 4 SCC 78. The High Court, after considering the facts and the precedent, held that the alleged offences did not rise to the level of serious crimes warranting denial of settlement and that proceeding with trial would be futile. Accordingly, the Court directed the petitioner to appear before the District Court for mediation, granted interim protection, and ordered that pre‑arrest bail be considered if a settlement is reached.
Issues considered
- Whether the alleged offences under the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act and IPC merit denial of an amicable settlement and continuation of criminal proceedings
- Whether the principles laid down in Naushey Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh permit quashing of proceedings in favor of mediation
- Whether interim protection and pre‑arrest bail can be granted pending settlement
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 352
- Indian Penal Code — s. 149, 307, 326
Subjects
- amicable settlement
- mediation
- pre‑arrest bail
- interim protection
- criminal procedure
- Section 307 IPC
- Naushey Ali case
- quashing proceedings
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89432 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-2025 Thana- HATHUA District- Gopalganj
======================================================
Mirgendra Pratap Kuwar @ Mirgendra Pratap Singh @ Mrigendra Pratap
Singh S/o- Narendra Kuwar R/v- Ratan Chak Ps- Hathua Dist- Gopalganj
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Aditya Raj, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Arun Kumar Pandey, APP.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 09-04-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Hathua P.S. Case No. 4 of 2025 registered under Sections
115(2), 126(2), 117(2), 352, 303(2) and 3(5) of the BNS.
3. As per the allegation made in the F.I.R., on
05.01.2025 at about 5:00 p.m., while the son of the informant
namely Ayush Kumar was returning home, he was confronted
by the petitioner’s dog. When he picked up a brick to ward it
off, the petitioner and other accused abused and assaulted the
informant and her son causing injuries. Co-accused Usha Devi
and Rubi Devi ransacked household articles, while Robin
Kuwar snatched the gold chain of the informant worth Rs.
1,50,000/-.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89432 of 2025(4) dt.09-04-2026
2/7
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent and informant is
his own gotiya. Learned counsel submitted that to buy peace of
mind, petitioner wants to settle the dispute amicably 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 petitioner has
agreed to appear before the learned District Court at 10:30 A.M.
on or before 27.04.2026.
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.
9. In this regard, I find it apt to take note of the
observation made by the Apex Court recently in case of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89432 of 2025(4) dt.09-04-2026
3/7
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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89432 of 2025(4) dt.09-04-2026
4/7
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."
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89432 of 2025(4) dt.09-04-2026
5/7
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 petitioner has willingly desired to appear
before the learned District Court on or before 27.04.2026, 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.
12. 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.89432 of 2025(4) dt.09-04-2026
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.
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 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.
14. In case of failure on the part of the petitioner to
appear on or before 27.04.2026 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.
15. In case, it is deliberate on the part of the
informant to reconcile, then in that case, the interim protection
granted to the petitioner 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, 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.
17. If both the parties arrive at amicable settlement,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89432 of 2025(4) dt.09-04-2026
7/7
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.
19. 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…