Vivek Ranjan @ Sonu Mishra v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12436 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-869 Year-2025 Thana- GOPALGANJ TOWN DistrictGopalganj ====================================================== Vivek Ranjan @ Sonu Mishra S/o Kaushal Kishore Mishra R/o Village - Moniya Chowk, P.S. - Gopalganj Town, District - Gopalganj. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. P. N. Shahi, Sr. Advocate Ms.Shubhangi Pandey, Advocate Mr. Anand Vardhan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Ram Naresh Ray, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 28-04-2026 Heard Mr. Mr. P. N. Shahi, learned Senior Counsel along with Ms.Shubhangi Pandey and Mr. Anand Vardhan, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Ram Naresh Ray, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Gopalganj Nagar P.S. Case No. 869 of 2025 registered for the offence(s) punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS.
3. As per the allegations made in the FIR, the petitioner induced the informant to invest money in a financial scheme on the assurance of higher returns within a period of three months. Acting upon such representation, the informant invested a total sum of Rs. 50 lakhs. However, upon expiry of
2/7 the stipulated period, the petitioner failed to repay the maturity amount and is now allegedly threatening the informant.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the informant is a builder, while the petitioner acted merely as a broker facilitating the sale of flats constructed by the builder. It is also submitted that the builder is not before this Court and that the flats have already been sold. However, on instruction, learned counsel submitted that the matter is purely civil in nature and to buy peace of mind, petitioner wants to settle the dispute amicably outside the Court.
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. Counsel for the petitioner on instruction, submitted that the petitioner has agreed to appear before the learned District Court at 10:30 A.M. on or before 11.05.2026.
7. Heard the parties
8. Considering the nature of allegation made in the F.I.R. which has a civil flavour and the same prima facie don't disclose an overwhelming element of criminality. In the absence
3/7 of the element of criminality, if both civil and criminal cases are allowed to continue, it will definitely amount to abuse of the process of law.
9. In this regard, I find it apt to refer the observation made by the Apex Court in para-12 in case of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673, which is reproduced hereinafter::
"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."
10. The Apex Court has reiterated the aforesaid preposition in its recent judgment of S.N. Vijayalakshmi & Ors. Vrs. The State of Karnataka and Anr. reported in (2025) SCC 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
4/7 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 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
5/7 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. Learned District Court is directed to take necessary steps to refer the matter for mediation under the provision of Mediation Act, 2023 before the learned Mediator of the District Mediation Center after issuing notice to informant by fixing a date for their appearance to give effect to "Mediation for the Nation 2.0."
13. Thereafter, learned Mediator of the District Mediation Center concerned shall make his/her best efforts to settle the dispute amicably and submit his/her report before the
6/7 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 the Apex Court as referredabove, 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 or before 11.05.2026 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 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.
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. With aforesaid direction and observation, the present application stands disposed of.
7/7
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) Sanjay/- U T