Patna High Court
Raja BabuversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The court granted interim pre‑arrest bail to the petitioner, subject to appearance before the district court and mediation, and disposed of the application.
Summary
Raja Babu petitioned for pre‑arrest bail in a complaint filed under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, alleging that he was falsely implicated in a matrimonial dispute involving a demand for money and alleged cruelty. The petitioner claimed innocence and sought an amicable settlement, while the complainant and the State opposed the bail but also expressed willingness for mediation. The court observed that matrimonial disputes are essentially private conflicts and should not be pursued as criminal offences unless there is genuine criminal content. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad), the court emphasized the need to encourage settlement through mediation. Consequently, the court directed the district court to refer the matter to a mediator, granted interim protection (pre‑arrest bail) to the petitioner pending mediation, and disposed of the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether pre‑arrest bail should be granted in a matrimonial dispute alleged under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act
- Whether the dispute merits criminal prosecution or can be resolved through mediation
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 498A
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- matrimonial dispute
- Section 498A
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- mediation
- criminal law
- abuse of process
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48754 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-161 Year-2019 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE - SHERGHATI
District- Gaya
======================================================
Raja Babu, Male, aged about 25 years, S/o Nageshwar Mahto, R/o Village-
Moniyatari Batasi, P.S.- Barachatti, District- Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kajal Kumari D/o Ramchandra Mahto R/o Village- Soki, P.S.- Majuharan,
District- Chata, Sasural residence- Village- Moniyatari Batasi, P.S.-
Barachatti, District- Gaya
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Giri, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Parmanand Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
5 17-01-2026 Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Jitendra Kumar Giri, learned
counsel for the complainant and Mr. Parmanand Kumar,
learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Complaint Case No. 161 of 2019 registered for the
offence(s) punishable under Sections 498(A) of the Indian Penal
Code and Sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act.
3. As per the allegations contained in the FIR, the
marriage of the complainant was solemnized with the petitioner
in the year 2017 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. It
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48754 of 2025(5) dt.17-01-2026
2/5
is further alleged that, after some time of the marriage, the
petitioner, in connivance with his family members, started
demanding a sum of ₹5,00,000/- from the parents of the
complainant. Upon non-fulfilment of the said demand, the
complainant was allegedly subjected to physical and mental
cruelty and was ousted from her matrimonial home.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent and has falsely
been implicated in the present case. He further submitted that
petitioner always tries to lead a peaceful married life with the
informant but she never co-operates with him on the instigation
of her family members. Learned counsel further submitted that
marriage is a sacred ceremony but little matrimonial skirmish
suddenly erupts into hatred and the parties ponder to reconcile
their dispute outside the court.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant opposing the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail
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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48754 of 2025(5) dt.17-01-2026
3/5
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. The matrimonial dispute is not an offense against
the society rather a matrimonial dispute is a private conflict
between spouses and does not inherently constitute an offence
against society. However, a false case can have a disastrous
consequence in absence of any criminal content. The personal
dispute cannot call for a criminal offence. In such situation,
continuation of the proceeding would amount to abuse of
process of law leading to vexatious proceeding against the
petitioner.
10. In this regard, the Apex Court in the case of B.S.
Joshi v. State of Haryana, reported in, (2003) 4 SCC 675, in
paragraph nos. 12 and 13 has held as under:-
“12. The special features in such matrimonial 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
[(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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48754 of 2025(5) dt.17-01-2026
4/5
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.”
11. The parties have willingly desired to appear before
the learned District Court on 19.02.2026, so that the matter can
be referred to the District Mediation Centre.
12. 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.
13. Learned Mediator of the District Mediation Center
concerned upon appearance of the parties on the fixed date 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 four 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, the petitioner is required to be released on pre-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48754 of 2025(5) dt.17-01-2026
5/5
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 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.
16. In case, it is deliberate on the part of the opposite
party no.2 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.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Niraj/-
U T
Checking your session…