Patna High Court
Md. Raja KhanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The High Court granted pre‑arrest bail to the petitioner and ordered the matter to be referred to mediation, overturning the trial court’s denial of bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Raja Khan, applied for pre‑arrest bail in a case under Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Right of Marriage) Act, 2019, alleging that he had pronounced triple talaq on his wife. The trial court rejected the bail application without considering the object of the Act. The Patna High Court held that the lower court acted mechanically and emphasized the need to encourage settlement of matrimonial disputes, referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajendra Bhagat v. State of Jharkhand and related precedents. The High Court directed that the matter be referred to the District Mediation Centre and that the petitioner be released on pre‑arrest bail subject to conditions. It further ordered that if the parties reconcile, the criminal case be withdrawn, and if not, the bail remains subject to the district court’s discretion.
Issues considered
- Whether pre‑arrest bail can be granted in an offence punishable under Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Right of Marriage) Act, 2019.
- Whether the object of the Act permits the parties to settle the dispute through mediation.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on matrimonial disputes (Rajendra Bhagat v. State of Jharkhand) is applicable to a triple‑talaq case.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 320, 482
- Muslim Women (Protection of Right of Marriage) Act, 2019 — s. 3, 4, 7
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- triple talaq
- Muslim Women Act
- mediation
- matrimonial dispute
- settlement
- Section 4
- Criminal Procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38727 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-47 Year-2025 Thana- SALAIYA District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Md. Raja Khan, Son of Jahangir Khan Resident of Village- Kukuraman PS-
Pratappur Distt -Chatra, Jharkhand
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Yasmin Naz Wife of Md. Raja Khan Resident of Village- Kukuraman PS-
Pratappur Distt -Chatra, Jharkhand At Present Daughter of Md. Hasnain
Khan, Resident of village- Basant, Ps- Salaiya, Dist- Aurangabad
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 17-06-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Salaiya P.S. Case No. 47 of 2025 for the offences
punishable under Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of
Right of Marriage) Act.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, while the
complainant was in her naiher, her husband along with other
family members came and pronounced talak three times.
4. The petitioner is the husband and O.P. No. 2 is
wife, who are governed by Muslim Law. The offence committed
by the petitioner is allegedly under Section 4 of the Muslim
Women (Protection of Right of Marriage) Act, 2019. The
offence is not against the society, however, the protection has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38727 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
2/5
been granted to those women, who are being divorced by 'Triple
Talaq'. Section 3 of the Act, 2019 provides that Mahr or other
properties of Muslim woman to be given to her at the time of
divorce. Section 4 of the Act provides for Punishment for
pronouncing talaq. Section 7 of the Act provides for Offence to
be cognizable, compoundable, etc.
5. It appears to me that learned District Court without
applying its mind by not going through the object of the Act, in
a mechanical manner, has passed the impugned order rejecting
the bail application of the petitioner. Keeping in mind the very
object of the Act, I am of the opinion that the parties first may
settle their dispute outside the Court. Law in this regard is well
settled by the Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Bhagat v.
State of Jharkhand, reported in (2022) 18 SCC 465, and I find
that it is applicable in the present case also.
6. The Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Bhagat
(supra) in paragraph no.9 has held as under:-
“9. Taking note of the object of
Section 498-AIPC, the expected approach of
the High Court in the event of bona fide
settlement of disputes had been duly
exposited by this Court in B.S. Joshi v. State
of Haryana [B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana,
(2003) 4 SCC 675 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 848] ,
wherein this Court has underscored the duty
of the Court to encourage the genuine
settlement of matrimonial disputes and said
as under : (SCC pp. 682-83, paras 12-16)
“12. The special features in such matrimonial
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38727 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
3/5
matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the court
to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial
disputes.
13. The observations made by this Court, though in
a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V.
Prasad [G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC
693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] are very apt for
determining the approach required to be kept in
view in a matrimonial dispute by the courts. It was
said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial
disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred
ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable
the young couple to settle down in life and live
peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes
suddenly erupt which often assume serious
proportions resulting in commission of heinous
crimes in which elders of the family are also
involved with the result that those who could have
counselled and brought about rapprochement are
rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused
in the criminal case. There are many other reasons
which need not be mentioned here for not
encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the
parties may ponder over their defaults and
terminate their disputes amicably by mutual
agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law
where it takes years and years to conclude and in
that process the parties lose their “young” days in
chasing their “cases” in different courts.
14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing
Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the
Penal Code, 1860 was to prevent torture to a
woman by her husband or by relatives of her
husband. Section 498-A was added with a view to
punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or
torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to
satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The
hypertechnical view would be counterproductive
and would act against interests of women and
against the object for which this provision was
added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of
inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the
ends of justice would prevent women from settling
earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the
Penal Code, 1860.
15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the
High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can
quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint
and Section 320 of the Code does not limit or affect
the powers under Section 482 of the Code.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38727 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
4/5
16. For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the
impugned judgment and allow the appeal and quash
the FIR abovementioned.”
7. The petitioner has willingly desired to appear
before the learned District Court on 01.07.2026, so that the
matter can be referred to the District Mediation Centre.
8. 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 to give effect to Mediation 2.0.
9. 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 one year, till then, no coercive action shall be
taken against the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid
case.
10. 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, 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.
11. In case of failure on the part of the petitioner to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38727 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
5/5
appear on 01.07.2026 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. If both the parties arrive at amicable settlement,
then they must withdraw the criminal cases, if any, which they
have lodged against each other.
15. With aforesaid direction and observation, the
present application stands disposed of.
16. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
District Legal Services Authority/Patna High Court Mediation
Centre for the purpose of record of nation for mediation 2.0.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Niraj/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.