Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Kusum DeviversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED

Holding

The court held that the matrimonial dispute is not a criminal offence and granted pre‑arrest bail subject to mediation.

Summary

Kusum Devi, the petitioner, applied for pre‑arrest bail in a case where the informant alleged that her husband assaulted her. The petitioner, who is the informant’s Gotani, claims she has been falsely implicated and that the matter is a private matrimonial dispute, not a criminal offence. The State argued for an amicable settlement, and the court noted that matrimonial conflicts are private and should not be treated as offences against society. Relying on Supreme Court precedents encouraging mediation in family matters, the court directed the District Court to issue notices and refer the parties to the District Mediation Centre. The court granted interim pre‑arrest bail conditioned on the petitioner’s appearance before the District Court on 17‑02‑2026 and participation in mediation, with the bail to lapse if she fails to comply.

Issues considered

  • The matrimonial dispute constitutes a criminal offence warranting denial of pre‑arrest bail.
  • Whether pre‑arrest bail can be granted conditionally pending mediation in a matrimonial dispute.
  • Whether the court should direct the parties to mediation before proceeding with criminal proceedings.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • pre‑arrest bail
  • matrimonial dispute
  • mediation
  • false criminal case
  • abuse of process
  • criminal procedure
  • Bihar

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87743 of 2025
                         Arising Out of PS. Case No.-683 Year-2024 Thana- FATUA District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Kusum Devi wife of Kamlesh Kumar Resident of Village-Dumari, P.S.-
                 Fatuha, District-Patna

                                                                                    ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Sushil Kumar Jha, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Ms.Nirmala Kumari, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   28-01-2026                  Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

                                2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection

                   with Fatuha P.S.Case No.683 of 2024, registered for the

                   offence(s) punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109,

                   324(4), 85, 352 and 351 of BNS being PTN 9230/24, GR

                   1748/24.

                                3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the marriage

                   of the informant was solemnized with one Bipin Kumar in the

                   Year, 2024 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals but on the

                   instigation of her Gotani, her husband assaulted her in drunken

                   condition and throttled her to kill. Petitioner is own Gotani of

                   the informant.

                                4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87743 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
                                            2/5




          petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent and she has

          falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel

          further submitted that the petitioner is own Gotani of the

          informant living in the same family, as such, quarrel between

          them is natural.

                       5. Learned APP appearing on behalf of      the State

          submitted that a chance can be given to the parties for amicable

          settlement of the dispute outside the court.

                       6. At   this stage, the learned counsel appearing on

          behalf of the informant upon instruction informs that to buy

          peace of mind, the informant wants to settle the dispute outside

          the court and the petitioner has also shown her desire to appear

          before the learned District Court on 17.02.2026 at 10.30 A.M.

          so that the matter can be referred for mediation before the

          learned Mediator of the District Meditation Centre to resolve

          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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87743 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
                                            3/5




          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 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87743 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
                                            4/5




          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 to give effect to mediation 2.O.

                       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 four 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

          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
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87743 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
                                                        5/5




                      granted to the petitioner shall automatically lose its force.

                                   15.    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.

                                   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)
chn/-

U       T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.