J&K HC Quashes 498-A FIR Against In-Laws | Notes Dowry Case May Have Been Influenced by Wife’s Ex-Cop Father, Allegation Unrebutted
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Single Bench of Justice Rajesh Sekhri allowed a petition seeking quashment of criminal proceedings in a matrimonial dispute. The Court held that the allegations made by the complainant against her in-laws were "vague and omnibus" and lacked specific details essential to constitute a cognizable offence. The Court found that the criminal proceedings were initiated under undue influence and were a result of personal vendetta. Consequently, the FIR, charge sheet, and the trial court's cognizance order were quashed.
The petitioners invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking quashment of FIR No. 0024 registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, and 506 IPC at Police Station, Women Cell, Udhampur. They also challenged the charge sheet presented before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udhampur, and the cognizance order dated 12.11.2024.
As per the judgment, the FIR originated from an application dated 04.11.2024, filed by the complainant through the SSP, Udhampur. The complainant alleged that she was married to the proforma respondent on 26.11.2023 and was subjected to harassment by the petitioners, who are her in-laws. The allegations included dowry demands in the form of an LCD, motor cycle, and gold ornaments. She further claimed to have been beaten and denied entry into the matrimonial home or maintenance.
The complainant alleged that on 19.03.2024 at 11:30 p.m., she was abused in the name of her parents, physically assaulted, and evicted from the matrimonial house. Despite repeated efforts to return, she was not allowed and was subjected to threats. An earlier application was said to have been submitted on 28.10.2024 to the SHO, Women Cell, which allegedly saw no action.
The FIR was formally registered on 05.11.2024, and the investigation concluded with a charge sheet submitted on 11.11.2024, followed by cognizance being taken by the trial court on 12.11.2024.
In response, the petitioners stated that petitioner No. 1 is a qualified entrepreneur running a hotel, while petitioner No. 2 is a retired bank executive. The marriage, they claimed, was conducted without dowry. They alleged that the complainant exhibited abusive behavior from the beginning, sought property partition, and eventually forced their son to live separately. They claimed she voluntarily left the house in March 2024.
A counter-incident on 19.09.2024 was cited, wherein the complainant and her father allegedly attempted to forcefully enter the petitioners' residence. Subsequently, the petitioners filed a domestic violence complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which was withdrawn on 05.10.2024 after family intervention.
The petitioners alleged that the complainant’s father, a retired police officer, influenced the SP, Udhampur, to register the FIR despite a delay of seven months. They claimed that due process, including preliminary enquiry as per Supreme Court guidelines in Lalita Kumari v. State of UP, was not followed.
The respondents denied any procedural violation and maintained that the investigation was lawful and led to substantiation of charges under the Indian Penal Code.
The Court recorded, "The only occurrence alleged by private respondent No. 2 against the petitioners and proforma respondent is of 19.03.2024 i.e. before BNSS came into force on 01.07.2024". It stated, "...the law applicable on the date of registration of FIR is the governing law" and hence BNSS was rightly followed in procedural steps.
Addressing the core issue, the Court stated, "The object of the anti dowry and anti domestic violence laws was a shield to the genuine victims than a weapon", and expressed concern about their misuse.
The Court cited Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, noting that Section 498-A had acquired a "dubious place of pride" and that arrests were often made without proper justification. It reiterated the need for balance: "...to ensure that such laws are in place to protect the genuine victims... and to safeguard the rights of accused from false accusations".
The judgment relied on recent Supreme Court judgements in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana and Rajesh Chaddha v. State of UP, observing, "vague, omnibus, generalized and sweeping accusations against a husband or his family members... should be nipped in the bud".
After examining the FIR, the Court found, "complainant/respondent No.2 has made vague and omnibus accusations against the petitioners without specific date, time and details". It noted that her earlier complaint under the DV Act, filed on 19.10.2024, made no mention of dowry.
The Court further stated, "the contents of the impugned FIR and the final report, on the face of it, do not disclose the commission of any offence against the petitioners". Regarding alleged influence by the complainant’s father, it stated, "...remains unrebutted and amounts to admission on their part..."
The Court concluded, "For the foregoing reasons, present petition is allowed and the impugned FIR, charge sheet, and order of cognizance dated 12.11.2024 qua petitioners are quashed". It disposed of the petition accordingly and vacated interim directions.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ashish Singh Kotwal, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Sumeet Bhatia, Government Advocate; Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate
Case Title: Usha Kiran and anr. v. UT of J&K & Ors.
Case Number: CRM(M) No. 912/2024
Bench: Justice Rajesh Sekhri
