The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashed a dowry and cruelty FIR, holding that the complaint was filed as a retaliatory move after the husband’s second marriage and lacked genuine, timely allegations of harassment or cruelty.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
J&K: The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has set aside criminal proceedings initiated under Section 498-A IPC and provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, holding that the FIR was lodged only after the husband entered into a second marriage and appeared to be driven by personal vendetta rather than genuine allegations of cruelty.
Justice Sanjay Parihar, while granting relief to the husband and his mother, observed that allowing the prosecution to continue would result in a misuse of criminal law. The Court noted that claims relating to dowry demand and harassment were conspicuously missing from earlier proceedings initiated by the wife and surfaced for the first time much later, raising serious doubts about their credibility.
Background of the Case
The petitioners, Shakeel-ul-Rehman and his mother, approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) seeking quashing of FIR No. 06/2023, registered on March 28, 2023, at the Women’s Police Station, Anantnag.
The couple was married in 2016 and had a child. Due to matrimonial discord, the husband claimed to have pronounced triple talaq on August 2, September 6, and October 6, 2022.
Before the FIR, the wife had already initiated:
- Maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, and
- A complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, on August 24, 2022.
Notably, these proceedings did not contain any allegations of dowry demand or physical cruelty.
Allegations in the FIR
In the impugned FIR, the wife alleged that:
- She was subjected to mental and physical cruelty,
- She was harassed for dowry,
- Her father had taken a loan of ₹16 lakh, a part of which was allegedly paid as dowry,
- She was thrown out of the matrimonial home in 2022, and
- The husband’s second marriage had made her life miserable.
Arguments Before the Court
Petitioners’ Contentions
Counsel for the petitioners argued that:
- The FIR was lodged with mala fide intent and was a counterblast to the husband’s second marriage,
- No allegations of dowry demand or physical cruelty were raised in earlier proceedings,
- The FIR was vague, mechanically drafted, and contained exaggerated and improved allegations, and
- The criminal law was being misused to settle personal scores.
Respondents’ Contentions
The respondents argued that:
- The investigation was complete and a charge sheet was ready.
- Offences under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were established.
- Financial transactions showed that the wife had transferred ₹7,95,150 to the husband’s account, and
- Pendency of civil or quasi-criminal proceedings does not bar criminal prosecution for cruelty.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Sanjay Parihar carefully examined the record and noted glaring inconsistencies in the wife’s claims.
The Court observed that:
- Despite claiming to have been ousted from the matrimonial home in July 2022, the wife did not lodge any criminal complaint at that time.
- Her earlier petitions under Section 125 CrPC and the Domestic Violence Act contained “not even a whisper” of dowry-related harassment, particularly against the mother-in-law,
- The allegations of dowry demand appeared for the first time in March 2023, after the husband’s second marriage on March 16, 2023.
Importantly, the Court relied on paragraph 7 of the FIR, where the wife explicitly stated that she complained because the husband contracted a second marriage without her consent. Justice Parihar observed:
“This assertion makes it abundantly clear that the initiation of criminal proceedings was triggered by the second marriage of petitioner No. 1.”
The Court further held that the timing and nature of allegations strongly suggested a vindictive intent.
The High Court referred to recent Supreme Court rulings in:
- Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana (2025), and
- Rajesh Chaddha v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025),
where the apex court cautioned against the misuse of Section 498-A IPC while reiterating its importance in protecting genuine victims of cruelty. Justice Parihar emphasized:
“The criminal process cannot be permitted to be used as a tool for settling personal scores or satisfying individual vendetta.”
Allowing the petition, the High Court quashed FIR No. 06/2023 and all proceedings arising from it, holding that continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
The Court concluded:
“The FIR, on the face of it, appears to have been lodged as a retaliatory measure after petitioner No. 1 contracted a second marriage.”
Case Title:
Shakeel-ul-Rehman and Anr. vs. Station House Officer Women Police Station Anantnag & Anr.
CrLM No. 150/2024, CRM(M) No. 162/2023
READ JUDGMENT
Click Here to Read More Reports On Dowry
Click Here to Read More Reports On 498A