Patna High Court
Girish KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The court granted pre‑arrest bail to the petitioner, subject to mediation and conditions set by the district court.
Summary
Girish Kumar, accused under Section 498A of the IPC for alleged dowry harassment, applied for pre‑arrest bail. Both he and the complainant, Sulekha Devi, expressed willingness to settle the matrimonial dispute through mediation. The High Court, citing Supreme Court judgments that matrimonial conflicts are private matters and encouraging genuine settlement, directed the district court to refer the case to the District Mediation Centre. The court ordered that the petitioner be released on pre‑arrest bail, subject to conditions imposed by the mediator and the district court. It further stipulated that if the parties reconcile, the criminal case should be withdrawn, and if they fail to appear for mediation, the interim protection would lapse.
Issues considered
- Whether pre‑arrest bail can be granted in a Section 498A case where the parties seek amicable settlement.
- Whether a matrimonial dispute constitutes a private matter that warrants quashing or staying criminal proceedings.
- Whether the court can condition bail on mediation and compliance with district court directives.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 320, 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 498A
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- Section 498A
- dowry harassment
- matrimonial dispute
- mediation
- criminal procedure
- settlement
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6058 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-337 Year-2024 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE - BARH District-
Patna
======================================================
Girish Kumar S/o Ram Sarekh Ray R/o Village - Naya Tola Raghopur, P.S -
Bakhtiyarpur, District - Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sulekha Devi, w/o Girish Kumar R/O Village- Raghopur, P.S. Bakhtiyarpur,
At present- D/O Kedar Rai, Village- Nadipar, Jamalpur, Barhiaya, P.S.
Athmalgola, Dist. Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anand Kumar, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, APP.
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Ashok Kumar Kashyap, Advocate.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 15-04-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the
O.P. No.2.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Complaint Case No. 337(c) of 2024 for the offences
punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation is of subjecting the O.P. No.2 to
various sorts of torture and cruelty for non-fulfillment of
demand of dowry.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the O.P.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6058 of 2026(3) dt.15-04-2026
2/6
No.2 and the allegation levelled against him is false and
concocted. Learned counsel further submitted that marriage is a
sacred ceremony but little matrimonial skirmish suddenly erupts
into hatred and the parties can be allowed to ponder to reconcile
their dispute outside the court.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.
No.2 and learned APP for the State jointly submitted that
opportunity may be given to the parties to reconcile their dispute
amicably.
6. The petitioner’s counsel also informs that he has
received instruction that the petitioner also wants to reconcile
the dispute by way of mediation.
7. The parties have agreed to appear before the
learned District Court at 10:30 A.M. on or before 04.05.2026 for
resolving the dispute by way of mediation.
8. Heard the parties.
9. This Court finds that 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, as has been held by the
Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Bhagat v. State of
Jharkhand, reported in (2022) 18 SCC 465 in paragraph no.9
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6058 of 2026(3) dt.15-04-2026
3/6
which is 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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6058 of 2026(3) dt.15-04-2026
4/6
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.
16. For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the impugned
judgment and allow the appeal and quash the FIR
abovementioned.””
10. The parties have willingly desired to appear
before the learned District Court on or before 04.05.2026, so
that the matter can be referred to the District Mediation Centre.
11. 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 to give effect to “Mediation for the Nation 2.0”.
12. 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 three months, till then, no coercive action
shall be taken against the petitioner in connection with the
aforesaid case.
13. In case, the parties resolve their dispute amicably
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6058 of 2026(3) dt.15-04-2026
5/6
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.
14. In case of failure on the part of the petitioner to
appear on 04.05.2026 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.
15. In case, it is deliberate on the part of the O.P. 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.
16. 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.
17. If both the parties arrive at amicable settlement,
then they must withdraw the criminal cases, if any, which they
have lodged against each other.
18. With aforesaid direction and observation, the
present application stands disposed of.
19. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6058 of 2026(3) dt.15-04-2026
6/6
Member Secretary, Bihar State Legal Services Authority and the
Patna High Court Mediation Centre for the purpose of record.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
mantreshwar/-
U T
Checking your session…