Md. Zuned Alam @ Mohd. Juned Alam @ Md. Junaid v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87796 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2025 Thana- KATIHAR COMPLAINT CASE DistrictKatihar ====================================================== Md. Zuned Alam @ Mohd. Juned Alam @ Md. Junaid Son of Abdul Mannan Resident of village - Basagaon, Police Station - Abadpur, District - Katihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Lavely Khatoon Wife of Md. Zuned Alam @ Mohd. Juned Alam @ Md. Junaid, D/o Md. Maroof Hussain At present Resident of Village- Dhachna, P.O.- Dhachna, P.S.- Barsoi, District- Katihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Najeeb Ahmad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sunil Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 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 Complaint Case No.03 of 2025, registered for the offence(s) punishable under Sections 115(2), 85, 316 (2) and 3(5) of BNS.

3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with the petitioner in the year, 2017 in accordance with Islamic Law and she was blessed with a male child, thereafter, the accused persons including the petitioner started demanding Rs.10 lac as the dowry and due to non-fulfilment of the same, they started harassing her mentally

2/5 and physically. On 24.05.2024 she was humiliated and ousted from her in-laws house and her son was snatched.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that petitioner is ready to resolve the dispute and give her accommodation in his parental house and even he is ready to give reasonable maintenance for her food and cloth but the complainant is not ready to co-operate with her husband.

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 petitioner upon instruction informs that the petitioner is ready to tender his appearance on 17.02.2026 at 10.30 A.M. before the learned District Court so that the matter can be referred for mediation before the learned Mediator of the District Meditation Centre to give effect to nation mediation 2.O and the parties can settle their dispute amicably outside the court and can buy peace of mid instead of fighting.

7. Heard the parties.

8. The matrimonial dispute is not an offense against the society rather a matrimonial dispute is a private conflict

3/5 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 for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate

4/5 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 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 prearrest bail on such terms and conditions as the learned District Court deems it fit and proper.

5/5

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 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