“Abuse of Process of Law”: J&K and Ladakh High Court Quashes FIR Against Husband’s Relative, Finds “No Specific Allegations” Under 498-A, 420 IPC
Isabella Mariam
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, before Single Bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal, quashed an FIR registered against the petitioner, a Ludhiana-based relative of the complainant’s husband, under Sections 498-A and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that continuation of the investigation against the petitioner amounts to abuse of process of law.
The Court recorded, “the continuance of the investigation against the petitioner shall be nothing but an abuse of process of law, particularly when no allegations against the petitioner in respect of commission of offences under Section 498-A and 420 IPC, have been leveled.” It was further recorded that “respondent No. 2 cannot array the petitioner as an accused in the FIR merely because he was nominated by the other accused persons for handing over of the articles lying in UK to her in India.”
The case arose from a matrimonial dispute between respondent No. 2 and her husband, a resident of the United Kingdom. The petitioner is stated to be the maternal uncle of respondent No. 2’s husband and a resident of Ludhiana. The marriage between respondent No. 2 and her husband was solemnized in November 2019, but subsequently failed, leading to divorce proceedings initiated before the HM Courts and Tribunal Services, Harlow, United Kingdom.
The petitioner submitted that he had participated in a reconciliation meeting in July 2023 in the United Kingdom to resolve the dispute between the couple. After the reconciliation attempt failed, respondent No. 2’s husband filed for divorce. The petitioner asserted that respondent No. 2 fully participated in the divorce proceedings and did not raise any allegations against him, his sister, brother-in-law, or nephew during that time. The Court recorded the petitioner’s statement that “respondent No. 2 participated in the whole proceedings before the Court at Harlow and she did not make any complaint with regard to the conduct of the petitioner, his sister, brother-in-law or nephew.” The divorce proceedings culminated in a conditional order declaring the marriage irretrievably broken down, followed by a final decree of divorce.
Subsequently, respondent No. 2 registered FIR No. 0112/2024 dated 06.06.2024 at Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, under Sections 498-A and 420 IPC against the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the complaint concealed the factum of divorce and failed to make out any offence against him. The petitioner also submitted that as per established legal principles, close relatives of a husband are often implicated in such cases without proper basis.
In the response filed by respondent No. 2, it was stated that the petitioner, being the maternal uncle of her husband, provoked her in-laws leading to alleged acts of cruelty, humiliation, dowry demands, and harassment. Specific incidents included the withholding of jewelry/stridhan, which respondent No. 2 claimed the petitioner was nominated to return. Respondent No. 2 further stated that the petitioner managed affairs in India, as nominated by the other accused persons, for returning the jewelry and stridhan which were yet to be handed over.
Additionally, respondent No. 2 alleged that during IVF treatment in India, her husband withdrew consent under the petitioner’s influence, causing her emotional and financial harm. The response stated that meetings organized in London under the guise of reconciliation were allegedly used to harass and humiliate her. Respondent No. 2 also submitted that the petitioner and his wife mocked her medical condition and leveled accusations of witchcraft.
The Court, after hearing both parties, noted that “a perusal of the contents of the application as extracted above would reveal that all the allegations have been levelled primarily against Kunwar Sood i.e., husband of respondent No. 2 and his parents.” Justice Oswal further recorded that “the petitioner comes into the picture only in the first week of July 2023 i.e., after the relations between respondent No. 2 and her husband had turned bad to worse, when he participated in the reconciliation meetings.”
The Court noted that the petitioner’s only participation was in reconciliation meetings held in July 2023 in the United Kingdom and found no direct allegations against him within the FIR. It was recorded that “in the meeting that took place on 11.07.2023, no specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioner. In fact, there is no allegation against the petitioner in the application and all the allegations have been leveled against the husband of respondent No. 2 and his parents.”
Further, the Court observed that “there is no reference to the petitioner in the impugned FIR anywhere, except in the meeting that took place in July, 2023 in United Kingdom.” The Court stated that respondent No. 2’s own version indicated that the petitioner was only nominated to hand over articles lying in the UK, a fact which did not establish criminal intent under Sections 498-A or 420 IPC.
The judgment recorded, “even in her statement recorded during investigation, there are no specific allegations against the petitioner except in respect of participation in the meetings held in UK for reconciliation.”
The Court concluded that “the petitioner has been arrayed as accused only to pressurize him to persuade his sister, nephew and brother-in-law to hand over the jewelry/articles to the complainant/respondent No. 2.”
The Court also took note of judicial precedent from the Supreme Court of India, citing the decision in “Payal Sharma vs. State of Punjab and Anr., 2024 INSC 896”. The Court extracted the following from paragraph 17: “A bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that such allegations against the accused No.5 and 6 are general and omnibus in nature and that apart they are nothing but exaggerated versions invariably suggesting over implication of accused No.5 and 6.”
Additionally, paragraph 20 of the same judgment was quoted, stating, “the decisions referred above on the subject of exercise of power under Section 482, Cr.P.C., would undoubtedly cast a duty on the Courts to consider the contentions that there is lack of specific allegations against the accused concerned to constitute the offence(s) alleged against a relative or that the implication was nothing but an over implication to pressurise the family of the husband to yield to the demands. The Courts cannot refrain from discharging the obligation to consider such contentions.”
Upon evaluating the submissions and evidence, the High Court quashed the FIR against the petitioner. The order recorded, “accordingly, FIR No. 0112/2024 under Sections 498-A & 420 IPC registered with Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu qua the petitioner is quashed.” The Court further directed that the case diary be returned to the Deputy Advocate General.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sachin Gupta, Ms. Arsha Sharma
For the Respondent : Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Deputy Advocate General , Mr. Pranav Kohli, Senior Advocate, Ms. Radhika Wahi, Advocate
Case Title: Sumesh Chadha versus UT of J&K and Anr.
Case Number: CRM(M) No. 489/2024 (O&M)
Bench: Justice Rajnesh Oswal
[Read/Download order]
