Priyanka Kumari v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44867 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-71 Year-2024 Thana- Bypass District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Priyanka Kumari, aged about 35 years, (Female), W/O Pankaj Kumar, resident of Village- Bhatonia, P.S- Madhusudanpur, District- Bhagalpur. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Gunjan Kumar S/o- Arun Mandal, R/o- Village- Sano, P.S.- Jagdishpur, District- Bhagalpur ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Shashi Saurabh, Advocate For the Informant :
Mr. Diwakar Upadhyaya, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Syed Ehteshamuddin, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 21-01-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Bypass P.S. Case No. 71 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant, Gunjan Kumar, lodged a written report before the Officer-inCharge, Bypass Police Station alleging that on the advice of property dealers Sushil Prasad Mandal, Umesh Prasad Mandal and Pintu Kumar, he purchased land measuring 2 Kattha, part of Khesra No. 08, Khata No. 2, situated at Mouza Amnai, Thana
2/6 No. 151, in the name of his wife Priyanka Kumari from Archana Sah, for which an agreement to sell dated 05.12.2022 was executed and a total sum of Rs. 32,00,000/- was paid by him, including Rs. 4,00,000/- by cheque, Rs. 10,00,000/- in cash and Rs. 18,00,000/- through RTGS to the account of Archana Sah, followed by execution of Kevala on 15.02.2023, mutation and construction of a boundary wall; however, subsequently he received a call from a person posing as an Anchal Karamchari informing him that the land had been purchased from a wrong person, whereafter the property dealers became untraceable, and upon visiting the house of Archana Sah, the informant allegedly realised that the said call was part of the same transaction, and thus the accused persons, in connivance with each other, cheated him and caused wrongful loss of Rs. 32,00,000/-.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the case. He further submits 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 be referred for mediation.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposing the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail
3/6 submitted that an opportunity may be given to the parties to resolve their dispute amicably outside the Court.
6. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submitted that a chance be given to the parties for amicable settlement outside the court.
7. 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 19.02.2026 for resolving the dispute by way of mediation.
8. Heard the parties
9. Having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegation made in the FIR, which disclose civil texture, I am of the opinion that an opportunity is required to be given to the parties to settle their score amicably outside the Court.
10. 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
4/6 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)
11. 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.
12. The parties have willingly desired to appear before the learned District Court on or before 19.02.2026, so that the matter can be referred to the District Mediation Centre for giving effect to Mediation 2.0.
13. 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.
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
5/6 his/her report before the concerned learned District Court, well within a period of four 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 19.02.2026 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 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,
6/6 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) Niraj/- U T