The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed an FIR registered under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, observing that the criminal proceedings were initiated as a retaliatory measure by the wife after her husband contracted a second marriage.
Justice Sanjay Parihar, while allowing the petition filed by the husband and his mother, held that the continuation of such proceedings would amount to an “abuse of the process of law.” The Court noted that the allegations of dowry demand and cruelty were conspicuously absent in previous legal proceedings initiated by the wife and were introduced only after the husband’s remarriage.
Background of the Case
The petitioners, Shakeel-ul-Rehman and his mother, approached the High Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to challenge FIR No. 06/2023. The FIR was registered at the Women’s Police Station, Anantnag, on March 28, 2023, at the instance of Respondent No. 2 (the wife).
The couple was married in 2016 and had a child. According to the petitioners, matrimonial discord led the husband to pronounce divorce (talaq) on three occasions: August 2, 2022, September 6, 2022, and October 6, 2022.
Prior to the registration of the FIR, the wife had already initiated proceedings under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance and under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, on August 24, 2022.
In the impugned FIR, the wife alleged that she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty and harassed for dowry. She claimed that her father had availed a loan of ₹16.00 lakhs, a part of which was paid to the petitioner as dowry. She further alleged that she was thrown out of the matrimonial home in 2022 and that the husband had contracted a second marriage, rendering her life miserable.
Arguments of the Parties
Contentions of the Petitioners: Counsel for the petitioners argued that the FIR was a “sheer abuse of the process of law” and was lodged with mala fide intention solely because the husband had contracted a second marriage. It was contended that in the earlier proceedings under Section 125 CrPC and the Domestic Violence Act, the wife had made “no allegation whatsoever regarding physical violence or dowry demand.”
The petitioners asserted that the allegations in the FIR were “vague, mechanically drafted, and have been materially improved during the course of investigation.” They argued that the FIR was a “counterblast” to the divorce and the second marriage of the petitioner.
Contentions of the Respondents: The counsel for the respondents argued that the petition was devoid of merit as the investigation was complete and a charge-sheet was ready to be presented. It was submitted that offences under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were established.
The respondents contended that the investigation revealed financial transactions where the wife transferred ₹7,95,150/- to the husband’s account. They argued that the pendency of other civil or quasi-criminal proceedings did not bar the wife from initiating criminal proceedings for cruelty committed while she resided in the matrimonial home.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Parihar examined the record and noted a significant inconsistency in the wife’s stance. The Court observed that while the wife claimed to have been thrown out of the matrimonial home on July 25, 2022, she did not initiate any criminal proceedings alleging cruelty or dowry demand at that stage. Instead, she filed petitions for maintenance and under the Domestic Violence Act.
The Court pointed out that in those earlier petitions, there was “not even a whisper… regarding dowry-related harassment attributable to her [mother-in-law].” The allegations of dowry demand surfaced for the first time in the FIR lodged in March 2023, after the husband contracted a second marriage on March 16, 2023.
Referring to paragraph 7 of the complaint, the Court noted that the wife explicitly stated she was lodging the FIR because the petitioner “contracted marriage on 16.03.2023 without her consent and without obtaining mandatory permission from the Government.”
The Court 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:
“The omission to do so [raise dowry allegations earlier], coupled with the fact that petitioner No. 1 contracted a second marriage only in the year 2023, strongly suggests that respondent No. 2 was provoked by the said marriage and, in order to teach a lesson to the petitioners, lodged the impugned FIR by raising exaggerated and imaginary allegations.”
Citing the Supreme Court’s recent judgments in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana (2025) and Rajesh Chaddha v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025), the High Court reiterated that while Section 498-A IPC is crucial for protecting women, it is increasingly being misused to settle personal scores.
Justice Parihar stated:
“The criminal process cannot be permitted to be used as a tool for settling personal scores or satisfying individual vendetta.”
Decision
The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings emanating from FIR No. 06/2023.
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… continuation of proceedings arising out of FIR No. 06/2023 against the petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of law.”
Case Details:
Case Title: Shakeel-ul-Rehman and Anr. vs. Station House Officer Women Police Station Anantnag & Anr.
Case No: CRM(M) No. 162/2023 (CrLM No. 150/2024)
Coram: Justice Sanjay Parihar
