Matrimonial disputes are private in nature and should prioritize reconciliation over criminal prosecution.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 02-12-2025 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has preferred the application under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 01.06.2018 and its consequential order dated 29.10.2024 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hajipur, Vaishali in Complaint Case No. 2410/2017 by which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence against the petitioner under Sections 4 98A /34 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the DP Act.

3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant was married to Satyam Prakash Singh (the petitioner) on 30.05.2013 after his divorce from his first wife namely Nidhi on 21.06.2012. It is further alleged that the complainant’s husband put pressure upon her demanding dowry and on refusal by the complainant, her husband, her mother-in-law and other family members assaulted and tortured her due to non-fulfillment of dowry demand. Thereafter, on the basis of the written complaint given by the complainant, the instant case bearing Complaint Case No. 2410/2017 was registered.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the allegation levelled against the petitioner is false and concocted. He further submitted that petitioner is the husband of the opposite party no.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus and petitioner is ready to tender apology and also ready for settlement to buy peace of mind. Learned counsel further submitted that marriage is a sacred ceremony but little matrimonial skirmish suddenly erupts into hatred, in such circumstances, the Court must allow the parties to ponder so that they can reconcile their dispute outside the court. He further submitted that matter be referred for mediation.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned APP are also of the same view and jointly submitted that opportunity shall be given to the parties to reconcile their dispute amicably.

6. The parties have agreed to appear before the learned District Court at 10:30 A.M. on 09.12.2025.

7. Heard the parties.

8. Having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties. The parties have mutually agreed to appear on 09.12.2025 before the learned District Court. 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 en