Matrimonial disputes should ideally be resolved amicably, and pre-arrest bail may be granted when no criminal intentions are present.

6 17-01-2026 Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Pankaj Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for the complainant and Mrs. Sucheta Yadav, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 275 of 2024 registered for the offence(s) punishable under Sections 498(A), 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the D.P. Act .

3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with the petitioner on 23.06.2022 as per Hindu Rites and Custom. After some time of marriage, petitioner along with other family members, had started torturing the complainant due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry of rupees five lakh.

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 counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposing the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail submitted that an opportunity may be given to the parties to resolve their dispute amicably outside the Court.

6. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submitted that a chance be given to the parties for amicable settlement outside the court.

7. Learned counsel for the respective parties, on instruction, submitted that the parties have agreed to appear before the learned District Court at 10:30 A.M. on 19.02.2026.

8. Heard the parties.

9. 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.

10. 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”