Petition for pre-arrest bail in a cheating and criminal breach of trust complaint over a monetary loan dispute. The court referred parties to community/district mediation, granted interim protection from coercive action for three months, and directed release on pre-arrest bail upon settlement or failure to reconcile.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80550 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1969 Year-2023 Thana- SARAN COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSaran
======================================================
Rajdeo Bhagat Son of Late Amirkhan Bhagat @ American Bhagat @ Amirkan Bhagat Resident of Village- Ladaura Ps- Kudhani (Turki O.P), DistMuzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ravindra Kumar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Abhay Kumar, APP. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER
6 04-05-2026
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner; learned counsel for the complainant and learned APP for the State.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80550 of 2025(6) dt.04-05-2026 2/7
the petitioner to return the same, the petitioner allegedly failed to do so and instead abused the complainant and threatened to kill him.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80550 of 2025(6) dt.04-05-2026 3/7
proceed to settle their dispute amicably by way of community mediation. In case, the parties fail to do so, then in that case, the parties may settle their dispute by way of mediation in accordance with Mediation Act, 2023 by approaching the learned District Court.
" 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)
proposition in recent judgment of S. N. Vijayalakshmi & Ors. vrs. The State of Karnataka and Anr. reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 1575 .
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80550 of 2025(6) dt.04-05-2026 4/7
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 ingredients:
In order to constitute a criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC)
(1) There must be entrustment with person for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80550 of 2025(6) dt.04-05-2026 5/7
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."
before the learned District Court on or before 15.05.2026, so that the matter can be referred to the District Mediation Centre.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80550 of 2025(6) dt.04-05-2026 6/7
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80550 of 2025(6) dt.04-05-2026 7/7
is directed to be released on pre-arrest bail on such terms and conditions as the learned District Court deems it fit and proper.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
mantreshwar/-
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Paramjeet Batra v. State of UttarakhandRelied on¶8
(2013) 11 SCC 673 · Who else cites this
S. N. Vijayalakshmi & Ors. vrs. The State of Karnataka and Anr.Referred¶9
(2025) SCC Online SC 1575 · Who else cites this
Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.Relied on¶10
Criminal Appeal No. 3114 of 2024
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Rajdeo Bhagat
The State of Bihar
Jivesh Kumar
Purnendu Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
