In a petition filed before the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court to challenge a First Information Report (FIR) registered under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (DPA), a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Parihar quashed the criminal proceedings that emanated from the said FIR to prevent the petitioners from further harassment.
It was urged that respondent 2 (ex-wife) had complained against the petitioner (husband) with mala fide intent after having resorted to multiple civil and quasi-criminal proceedings against the petitioner. It was alleged that after a few years of marriage, the ex-wife intended to ruin her husband’s matrimonial life and became unwilling to fulfil her marital obligations, which compelled the petitioner to pronounce divorce on three occasions. After the couple had been divorced, the ex-wife filed a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) and had also initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The petitioners contended that the allegations regarding the demand of dowry, contained in the said FIR, were concocted and were a result of personal vendetta arising out of the husband’s second marriage.
In her complaint, the ex-wife alleged that she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty after one year of her marriage because of dowry demands. She also alleged that in 2022, she had been thrown out by her husband and mother-in-law and that the husband had contracted a second marriage. Investigation revealed that the ex-wife had transferred Rs. 7,95,150/- to the husband’s account on different occasions and that offences under Sections 498-A, 506 of IPC and Sections 3/4 of the DPA were established against the petitioners.
The Court noted that in recent decisions, the Supreme Court had specified that vague allegations against the husband as well as his relatives, without specifying their active role or involvement, should be curbed at the threshold. It was stated that the material inconsistencies in the allegations made by the ex-wife in various proceedings lend credence to the contention that the FIR was only an afterthought. The Court said that any suffering undergone by the ex-wife would ordinarily surface across all said proceedings initiated by her.
The Court stated that even though an FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence, it is a vital document and that a delay in lodging an FIR, as was the case in the present matter, gives rise to the possibility of exaggeration and introduction of a coloured version. It was found that the FIR had been lodged due to the second marriage of the husband, and to teach him and his relatives a lesson.
Further, the Court stated that the continuation of criminal proceedings in the present matter would amount to an abuse of the process of law. It was also noted that the ex-wife had first approached the Senior Superintendent of Police, who had directed the registration of an FIR, which is a general recourse when the police are reluctant to file a complaint.
Thus, the Court quashed the proceedings emanating from the said FIR to prevent the harassment of the petitioners and disposed of the petition.
Appearances:
For Appellant(s) – Mr. Sheikh Younis
For Respondent(s) – Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway
