Patna High Court
Vivek RanjanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The High Court held that when a criminal complaint is essentially a civil dispute, the court should order mediation and grant interim protection pending settlement, rather than allow the criminal process to continue.
Summary
The petitioner sought pre‑arrest bail in a case where he was accused of criminal breach of trust and cheating for allegedly obtaining a home loan in the informant's name. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, posing as a loan agent, misappropriated Rs. 34.38 lakh using forged documents and dishonoured cheques. The petitioner claimed innocence and argued that the dispute was essentially a civil monetary matter suitable for mediation. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that where a criminal complaint disguises a civil dispute, the court should facilitate mediation and grant interim protection rather than proceed with coercive action. Accordingly, the court directed the parties to appear before the District Court for mediation, conditioned the interim protection on their participation, and disposed of the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether pre‑arrest bail should be granted when the alleged offences arise from a civil monetary dispute.
- Whether the criminal proceedings constitute an abuse of process warranting a stay pending mediation.
- Whether the High Court can, under its inherent powers, direct mediation under Section 482 CrPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- mediation
- civil dispute
- criminal breach of trust
- cheating
- Section 406 IPC
- Section 420 IPC
- abuse of process
- Section 482 CrPC
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91239 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-337 Year-2024 Thana- RAMPUR District- Gaya
======================================================
Vivek Ranjan Sri Manindra Kumar Singh Bank of India Colony, Indrapuri,
Ashiyana, P.O. B.V. College,PS-Shastri Nagar, Patna, 800014.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajan Ghoshrave, Advocate
Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Suman Kumari Singh, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Dhirendra Kr. Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 04-02-2026 Heard Mr. Rajan Ghoshrave, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner;Ms. Suman Kumari Singh,
learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. Dhirendra
Kr. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Rampur P.S. Case No. 337 of 2024 registered under
Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471 and 120(B) of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution's story in brief is that posing as a
loan agent, the petitioner took the informant’s signatures,
original documents, and blank cheques on the pretext of
arranging a loan. Using these documents, he fraudulently
obtained a home loan of Rs. 34,38,000/- in the informant’s name
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91239 of 2025(2) dt.04-02-2026
2/7
and misappropriated the entire amount. Despite repeated
assurances and written agreements to repay the money, the
petitioner failed to repay the money and the cheques issued as
security were later dishonoured, causing further loss to the
informant.
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 may be referred for
mediation.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State,
opposing the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail submitted that
an opportunity may be given to the parties to resolve their
dispute amicably outside the Court.
6. However, at this stage, learned counsel for the
respective parties, on instruction, submitted that the parties have
agreed to appear before the learned District Court at 10:30 A.M.
on 12.02.2026 for resolving the dispute by way of mediation.
7. Heard the parties
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91239 of 2025(2) dt.04-02-2026
3/7
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 primarily the parties
are aggrieved with certain transaction of money and 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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91239 of 2025(2) dt.04-02-2026
4/7
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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91239 of 2025(2) dt.04-02-2026
5/7
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
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 12.02.2026, so
that the matter can be referred to the District Mediation Centre.
13. Learned District Court is directed to take
necessary steps to issue notices to the respective parties and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91239 of 2025(2) dt.04-02-2026
6/7
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.
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
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 12.02.2026 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
informant to reconcile, then in that case, the interim protection
granted to the petitioner shall continue and the trial shall
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91239 of 2025(2) dt.04-02-2026
7/7
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,
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.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
U T
Checking your session…