Aditya Kumar Dubey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48338 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2838 Year-2022 Thana- EAST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT District- East Champaran ====================================================== Aditya Kumar Dubey, aged about 30 Years (Male) S/o Braj Kishore Dubey R/o Village Bakhari Mahesh, P.S.- Kalyanpur, District- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Champa Kumari W/o Aditya Kumar Dubey, D/o Late Digendra Mandal R/o vill - Amolwa, P.S- Gaunaha, Distt.- West Champaran ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dhannjay Kumar II, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 17-01-2026 Heard Mr. Dhannjay Kumar II, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Trial No. 2160 of 2025 arising out of Complaint Case No. 2838 of 2022 registered for the offence(s) punishable under Sections 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the complainant married to the petitioner in the year 2017. After some time the petitioner had started putting pressure on the complainant to establish sexual relationship with his other friends to which, the complainant had refused and for the same,

2/5 the petitioner 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 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 19.02.2026.

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

3/5 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 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 19.02.2026, so that the matter can be referred to the District Mediation Centre.

11. Learned District Court is directed to take

4/5 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.

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 prearrest 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 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.

15. In case, it is deliberate on the part of the opposite party no.2 to reconcile, then in that case, the interim protection

5/5 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