IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89948 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2279 Year-2024 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-

Patna ======================================================

Ram Sundar Prasad @ Sunny Kumar S/O Sri Jitendra Kumar Prasad R/O Village- Andhra Chauki, P.S- Bikram, Distt.- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Nitu Kumari W/O Ram Sundar Prasad @ Sunny Kumar, D/O Raj Kishore Rai R/O Village- Ufarpura, P.S- Phulwarisharif, Distt.- Patna.

... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Jyoti Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Madan Kumar, APP ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER

2 15-01-2026 Heard Ms. Jyoti Kumari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Madan Kumar, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 2279(C) of 2024 registered for the offence(s) punishable under Sections 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the DP Act.

3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the complainant married to the petitioner on 24.02.2022, which was a love marriage and thereafter solemnised marriage as per the customs on 12.06.2022, after which the complainant went to her matrimonial home. Thereafter the petitioner and other accused started torturing the complainant due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.

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 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 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