“‘Left as a Servant, Dragged by Her Hair, Threatened with Death’: J&K HC Upholds 498-A Charges, Rejects Plea to Quash FIR”
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar held that the allegations of mental and physical cruelty made against the petitioners, as supported by the complainant’s statements and material collected during investigation, constituted a cognizable offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The Court dismissed the petitions seeking quashing of the FIR, noting that the case did not warrant intervention under Section 482 CrPC and that the interim directions previously granted stood vacated.
The petitioners, parents-in-law and husband sought quashing of FIR No. 18 dated May 20, 2021, registered at Women Cell, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu under Sections 498A and 109 IPC. The complainant alleged that her marriage took place on April 8, 2021, and that soon after, she was subjected to harassment and cruelty, both mental and physical, by her husband and in-laws.
According to the FIR, the husband left for Canada shortly after the marriage and, during telephonic conversations, used derogatory language and informed the complainant that she had been left as a servant for his parents. It was alleged that the parents-in-law threatened to eliminate her if she communicated these issues to her family. On April 29, 2021, she was left at her parental home with her belongings and further threats were issued against disclosing any information.
The complainant further asserted that she was beaten with a wooden rod by her husband before his departure and that she was constantly harassed regarding her financial background, with accusations about insufficient funds and taunts that her parents had spent all their money on her education.
The Court had previously allowed the investigation to proceed but barred the presentation of the charge sheet without prior permission. During the pendency of the petitions, investigation continued and status reports were submitted.
The petitioners argued that the FIR was motivated and vague, failing to provide specific details necessary to establish offences under Section 498A IPC. They contended that the complaint did not allege conduct severe enough to amount to cruelty as defined in the statute. It was also submitted that no demands for dowry were detailed in the FIR, and the allegations were too general.
The official respondents submitted that the investigation, including statements under Section 161 CrPC, supported the complainant's claims. The evidence gathered established offences under Section 498A against the husband and Sections 498A/109 against the parents-in-law. While the in-laws had been granted bail, the husband remained abroad.
The complainant filed a reply reiterating the contents of the FIR, describing multiple incidents of abuse, including verbal and physical assaults, restrictions on contacting her family, and being thrown out of her matrimonial home. These actions were alleged to have inflicted significant psychological and physical harm.
Justice Sanjay Dhar stated: “An FIR is not an encyclopaedia of the crime. It only gives a bird’s eye view about the nature of crime which has taken place and it is only when an investigation is launched… that details with regard to the crime are unearthed.”
Referring to the complainant's statement under Section 161 CrPC, the Court recorded: “She has given vivid details about the acts of cruelty… and mentioned the dates and the nature of actions which the petitioners are alleged to have indulged in.”
It was further recorded: “By no stretch of reasoning, it can be stated that the allegations made against the petitioners are omnibus lacking in details.”
The Court examined the scope of Section 498A IPC: “Cruelty as contemplated under Section 498A IPC would be a conduct of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health.”
Regarding the mental trauma and physical assaults described, the Court observed: “These acts clearly amount to grave injury or danger to health (mental and physical) of the complainant. The same fulfils the ingredients of offence under Section 498A IPC.”
The Court cited Jaideepsing Pravinsinh Chavda vs. State of Gujarat (2025) 2 SCC 116 to state: “If the conduct of husband or his relatives is accompanied with an intention to cause grave injury to a woman, whether or not she was driven to commit suicide… is immaterial, it would amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A IPC.”
The Court concluded: “The present case is not of such a nature as would warrant exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.”
The Court issued the following directive: “The petitions lack merit and are dismissed accordingly. Interim direction(s) shall stand vacated.”
The judgment directed that the Case Diary be returned to the learned counsel for the official respondents. No further relief was granted and the petitions challenging the FIR were dismissed in full.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. P. D. Singh, Deputy Advocate General; Mr. M. A. Bhat, Advocate
Case Title : XXX v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and Others
Case Number: CRM(M) No. 336/2021 c/w CRM(M) No. 109/2022
Bench: Justice Sanjay Dhar
[Read/Download order]
