Patna High Court
Shams TabrezversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The petitioner is to be released on pre‑arrest bail subject to mediation and conditions as deemed fit by the District Court.
Summary
Shams Tabrez applied for pre‑arrest bail in a complaint filed under IPC Section 498A and Sections 3 and 4 of the Domestic Violence Act, alleging that the marital dispute was a private matter and that the case was false. The complainant alleged extortion and eviction after marriage, while the petitioner claimed innocence and sought reconciliation. Both parties agreed to appear before the District Court for mediation on 19‑02‑2026. The High Court, citing the Supreme Court’s stance in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, emphasized encouraging settlement of matrimonial disputes and directed the District Court to refer the matter to a mediator. The Court granted interim protection to the petitioner, ordering pre‑arrest bail conditioned on participation in mediation, and disposed of the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether a pre‑arrest bail should be granted in a matrimonial dispute alleged under Section 498A IPC and the Domestic Violence Act.
- Whether the criminal proceeding constitutes an abuse of process given the private nature of the dispute.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 498A
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- matrimonial dispute
- Section 498A
- Domestic Violence Act
- mediation
- abuse of process
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50943 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-856 Year-2021 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
Shams Tabrez, Male, Aged about 39 years, S/o Nehal Khan, R/o- Jamshedpur
Jugsalaye Gauri Shankar Road, Pahalvan Road, District - East Singhbhum,
Jharkhand
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Nilofar Khanam D/o - Akhtar Khan R/o - C- 36 Indrapuri, Samanpura, Raza
Bazar, District - Patna 800014
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vishal Vikram Rana, Advocate
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Md. Abu Shajar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 17-01-2026 Heard Mr. Vishal Vikram Rana, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Md. Abu Shajar,
learned counsel for the complainant and Mr. Satyendra Narayan
Singh, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Complaint Case No. 856 of 2021 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 allegation made in the FIR, the marriage
of the complainant was solemnized with the petitioner on
11.05.2012. After one month of marriage, behaviour of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50943 of 2025(4) dt.17-01-2026
2/5
petitioner and his family members changed towards petitioner
and they had started torturing the complainant to bring rupee
fifty lakh from her parents to buy a new flat and due to non-
fulfillment of the same, they had ousted the complainant from
her matrimonial house.
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.
7. However, at this stage, learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50943 of 2025(4) dt.17-01-2026
3/5
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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50943 of 2025(4) dt.17-01-2026
4/5
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-
arrest bail on such terms and conditions as the learned District
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50943 of 2025(4) dt.17-01-2026
5/5
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
Checking your session…