Patna High Court
Akhilesh Kumar SonyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The Court held that the matrimonial dispute is a private matter not constituting a societal offence and ordered referral to mediation with pre‑arrest bail, disposing of the petition.
Summary
Akhilesh Kumar Sony sought protection from arrest in a complaint (No. 360 of 2024) alleging offences under IPC sections 323, 498A, 354/34 and the Dowry Prohibition Act sections 3 and 4, claiming the allegations of dowry‑related cruelty were false. He argued that the dispute was a private matrimonial matter and not a societal offence, and expressed willingness to appear before the District Court for mediation. The State opposed, suggesting an amicable settlement. The High Court, citing B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad, held that matrimonial disputes are private and should be resolved through mediation rather than criminal prosecution, directing the District Court to issue notices and refer the matter to the District Mediation Centre. The Court ordered that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner pending mediation and directed that pre‑arrest bail be granted, disposing of the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether a matrimonial dispute involving alleged dowry harassment constitutes a criminal offence warranting continuation of criminal proceedings.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest bail and interim protection pending mediation.
Legislation cited
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 354, 498A
Subjects
- dowry harassment
- matrimonial dispute
- pre‑arrest bail
- mediation
- criminal procedure
- IPC
- Dowry Prohibition Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90055 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-360 Year-2024 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE - BIKRAMGANJ
District- Rohtas
======================================================
Akhilesh Kumar Sony S/O Shri Shivpujan Seth Residetn of Village-
Siyawank, P.S.- Baghaila, District- Rohtas
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Patna
2. Bindu Devi W/O Akhilesh Kumar Sony R/O Vill. and Post.- Siyawank, P.S.-
Baghaila, Dist.- Rohtas. At Present R/O Vill.- Gadura, Post.- Deomarkendey,
P.S.- Karakat (Godari), Dist.- Rohtas.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Om Prakash Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 15-01-2026 Heard Mr. Om Prakash Singh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Surendra Prasad
Singh, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Complaint Case No. 360 of 2024 registered under Sections
323, 498(A), 354/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4
of DP Act.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, after
marriage, the complainant was subjected to physical and mental
cruelty by her husband and in-laws due to non-fulfillment of
demand of dowry.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90055 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
2/5
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 APP appearing on behalf of the State
submitted that a chance be given to the parties for amicable
settlement outside the court.
6. The petitioner’s counsel on instruction submitted
that the petitioner has agreed to appear before the learned
District Court at 10:30 A.M. on 12.02.2026.
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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90055 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
3/5
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
before the learned District Court on 12.02.2026, 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90055 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
4/5
appearance of the parties.
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 12.02.2026 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90055 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
5/5
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.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
U T
Checking your session…