Ravi Ranjan Singh @ Raviranjan Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10099 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-870 Year-2024 Thana- SARAN COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSaran ====================================================== 1.
Ravi Ranjan Singh @ Raviranjan Singh Son of Jagarnath Singh Resident of Village - Chaturpur, Gopalur, P.S. - Nayagaon, Dist. - Saran. 2.
Ashish Kumar Singh Son of Abhay Kumar Singh Resident of Village - Kastun Chak, P.S. - Nayagaon, Dist. - Saran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Rameshwar Prasad Singh Son of Late Satynarayan Singh Resident of Village - Murthan, P.S. - Sonepur, Dist. - Saran. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Vatsal Verma, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Ram Anurag Singh, APP.
For O.P. No.2 :
Mr. Danish Sami, Advocate.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 12-03-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners; learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.
2. As prayed for, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is permitted to implead Satendra Narayan Singh and Damodar Singh as opposite party nos. 3 and 4, in course of the day.
3. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 870 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 419, 467, 468, 120B, 406, 504, 506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
2/8
4. The prosecution case, as alleged by the complainant Rameshwar Prasad Singh, is that on 01.04.2024 he was abused and assaulted by the petitioners along with other accused persons. The complainant states that he had earlier purchased land from Satendra Narayan Singh, appertaining to Khata No. 278, Khesra No. 1205, measuring 51⁄2 kathas in Mauza Murthan for Rs. 61,000/- vide Deed No. 11073 dated 17.11.2009, and another land bearing Khata No. 280, Khesra No. 1206, measuring 6 kathas 13 dhurs for Rs. 1,22,000/- vide Deed No. 6745.
It is alleged that despite the said lands already being registered in favour of the complainant in 2008 and 2009, the accused persons, in conspiracy with Damodar Singh, a relative of Satendra Narayan Singh, subsequently got the same land registered in favour of the petitioners, thereby cheating the complainant and attempting to grab his property and money. The complainant further claims that he is in possession of the land and that the accused have no right over it, and in support of his claim he has annexed photocopies of the land documents, receipts, and the family genealogy before the learned court below.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and they
3/8 have falsely been implicated in the case. He further submits that the matter primarily relates to civil dispute between the parties and for amicable settlement of dispute between the parties outside the Court, the matter be referred for mediation.
6. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P. No.2 jointly submitted that a chance be given to the parties for amicable settlement outside the court.
7. The petitioners' counsel informs that he has received instruction that the petitioners also want to reconcile the dispute by way of mediation.
8. Both the parties have agreed to appear before the learned District Court at 10:30 A.M. on 17.03.2026 for resolving the dispute by way of mediation.
9. Heard the parties
10. 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.
11. In this regard, I find it apt to take note of the observation made by the Apex Court in case of Paramjeet
4/8 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)
12. 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.
13. 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
5/8 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 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
6/8 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."
14. Both the parties have willingly desired to appear before the learned District Court on or before 17.03.2026, so that the matter can be referred to the District Mediation Centre.
15. 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".
16. 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
7/8 shall be taken against the petitioners in connection with the aforesaid case.
17. 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 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.
18. In case of failure on the part of the petitioners to appear on 17.03.2026 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.
19. In case, it is deliberate on the part of the complainant to reconcile, then in that case, the interim protection granted to the petitioners shall continue and the trial shall proceed in accordance with law.
20. 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 terms and conditions as the learned District Court deems it fit and proper.
21. If both the parties arrive at amicable settlement, then they must withdraw the criminal cases, if any, which they
8/8 have lodged against each other.
22. With aforesaid direction and observation, the present application stands disposed of.
23. 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