Patna High Court
Arun MandalversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The High Court granted conditional pre‑arrest bail and ordered the matter to be referred to mediation, holding that the dispute is essentially civil and should be settled amicably.
Summary
The petitioner, Arun Mandal, applied for pre‑arrest bail in a complaint alleging cheating under IPC sections 420, 467, 468 and 120(B) arising from a disputed land sale where Rs.2,00,000 was paid in advance. The petitioner claimed innocence, argued that the dispute was essentially civil, and sought mediation instead of criminal prosecution. The State and the informant opposed the bail but also expressed willingness for an amicable settlement. The High Court, citing the Supreme Court’s observations in Paramjeet Batra and S.N. Vijayalakshmi, held that the matter could be resolved through mediation and that the criminal process should not be used to enforce a civil claim. Accordingly, the Court directed the District Court to refer the case to the District Mediation Centre, granted conditional pre‑arrest bail, and stipulated that bail would lapse if the petitioner failed to appear for mediation. The application was disposed with the bail order and mediation directions.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest bail in a cheating case under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120(B) of the IPC.
- Whether the dispute is essentially civil and should be resolved through mediation rather than criminal prosecution.
- Whether the High Court may direct referral to mediation under its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 420, 467, 468
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- cheating
- land sale dispute
- mediation
- civil‑criminal nexus
- Section 482 CrPC
- IPC
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9822 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-16 Year-2021 Thana- KHAGARIA COMPALINT CASE
District- Khagaria
======================================================
Arun Mandal Son of Late Vindeshwari Mandal Resident of Village-
Babuchakla, P.S.- Pasraha, District- Khagaria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sudhir Singh @ Satyanarayan Bansidhar Son of Late Arjun Singh Resident
of Village- Bandehra, P.S.- Pasraha, District- Khagaria. At present resident
of house no. 96, second floor, Gali no. 12, Ambedkar Choupal, Dhirpur, P.S.-
Mukiharjee Nagar, District- Delhi
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Santosh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Kumar Veerendra Narayan, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 06-05-2026 Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Kumar Veerendra
Narayan, learned APP for the State, as well as, Mr. Shiv Kumar,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Informant.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Complaint Case No. 16C/2021 registered for the offence(s)
punishable under Sections 420,467,468,120(B) of the IPC.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the
informant alleged that the petitioner and others agreed to sell a
specific parcel of land to him for a consideration of Rs.
4,00,000/-, out of which Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid in advance and
an agreement was executed on stamp paper. However, despite
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9822 of 2026(3) dt.06-05-2026
2/5
repeated requests and readiness on the part of the informant to
pay the remaining amount, the accused persons avoided
execution of the sale deed and allegedly, in furtherance of a
conspiracy, dishonestly retained the money and refused to
transfer the land, thereby committing cheating.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. Learned counsel further submitted that there are no
ingredients constituting an offence under Section 420 of the
Indian Penal Code, and the allegations, even if taken at their
face value, do not make out a case of cheating. The petitioner
has no criminal antecedent. 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. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the Informant and 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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9822 of 2026(3) dt.06-05-2026
3/5
on 14.05.2026.
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
outside the Court and the Opposite Party No. 2 is permitted to
seek exemption from personal appearance, and his learned
counsel shall be permitted to represent him on each and every
date fixed before the learned Mediator.
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9822 of 2026(3) dt.06-05-2026
4/5
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 petitioner has willingly desired to appear
before the learned District Court on or before 14.05.2026, so
that the matter can be referred to the District Mediation Centre.
12. Learned District Court is directed to issue notice
to O.P. No.2 and 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”.
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9822 of 2026(3) dt.06-05-2026
5/5
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 14.05.2026 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
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.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
U T
Checking your session…