Patna High Court
Anuj Kumar ChauhanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The court held that the matrimonial dispute is a private matter not constituting an offence against society and granted conditional pre‑arrest bail, directing mediation.
Summary
Anuj Kumar Chauhan applied for pre‑arrest bail in a case arising from a matrimonial dispute in which his wife alleged physical and mental torture and theft of jewellery. The FIR listed offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 85, 351(2), 352, 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. The court observed that such disputes are private matters and not offences against society, and that proceeding would amount to an abuse of process. Citing B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, the court emphasized the need to encourage settlement through mediation. The petitioner agreed to appear before the District Court for mediation, and the High Court directed the District Court to issue notices and refer the matter to the Mediation Centre, granting conditional pre‑arrest bail pending successful mediation. The application was disposed with directions for mediation and conditional bail.
Issues considered
- Whether a matrimonial dispute can be treated as a criminal offence warranting pre‑arrest bail denial
- Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings in a private matrimonial conflict amounts to abuse of process
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to conditional pre‑arrest bail pending mediation
Legislation cited
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- matrimonial dispute
- mediation
- abuse of process
- family law
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87521 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-78 Year-2024 Thana- AGRER District- Rohtas
======================================================
Anuj Kumar Chauhan, Male, Aged about 33 years, Son of Ram Prakash Ray
@ Ram Pravesh Ray, resident of Village - Gotapa, P.S. - Agrer, Distt. -
Rohtas.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Nidhi Singh Wife of Anuj Kumar Chauhan R/o Village - Madan Semaria,
P.S. - Kochas, Distt. - Rohtas.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 28-01-2026 Heard Mr. Vikram Singh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar Singh
No. 1, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Agrer P.S. Case No. 78 of 2024 registered for the
offence(s) punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 85, 351(2),
352, 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the marriage
of the informant/O.P. No. 2 was solemnized to the petitioner on
03.06.2023. After few days of marriage, the informant (O.P. No.
2) came to know that her husband is having illicit relationship
with another woman and when she had protested the same, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87521 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
2/5
petitioner and his other family members had started torturing the
informant physically and mentally and had also taken her
jewellery and other ornaments. A Panchayati took place on
01.07.2024, in which, the petitioners' side had assaulted the
brother of the informant.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that considering the nature of allegation
alleged against the petitioner, who is husband of the O.P. No. 2,
an attempt was made to settle their matrimonial dispute outside
the Court by way of mediation, however, the mediation was
failed because the O.P. No. 2 didn't attend the proceeding of
mediation leading to filing of the present application for grant of
pre-arrest bail after refusal by the learned District Court.
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 APP appearing on behalf of the State
submitted that one more chance be given to the parties for
amicable settlement outside the court.
6. However, at this stage, the petitioner’s counsel, on
instruction, submitted that the petitioner has agreed to appear
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87521 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
3/5
before the learned District Court at 10:30 A.M. on 17.02.2026
for resolving the dispute by way of mediation.
7. Heard the parties.
8. 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.
9. 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
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87521 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
4/5
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.”
10. The petitioner has willingly desired to appear
before the learned District Court on 17.02.2026, so that the
matter can be referred to the District Mediation Centre.
11. 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 so as to give effect to Mediation 2.0.
12. 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 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
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.87521 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
5/5
Court deems it fit and proper.
14. In case of failure on the part of the petitioner to
appear on 17.02.2026 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.
15. 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.
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. With aforesaid direction and observation, the
present application stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Niraj/-
U T
Checking your session…