Criminal law no tool for settling personal scores, Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashes dowry FIR

Background

The couple got married in 2016 and had a son from the wedlock.

The man had initiated divorce proceedings against the woman alleging that after some years of marriage, she was unwilling to discharge her marital obligations and intended to ruin his matrimonial life.

Despite repeated attempts at reconciliation, the matrimonial discord could not be resolved and a divorce was granted in 2022.

In 2022 only, the wife initiated multiple legal proceedings against her husband, including a petition seeking maintenance and proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The woman instituted another case against the man and his mother in 2023 after he contracted a second marriage alleging that it was done without her consent and without obtaining mandatory permission from the government.

Aggrieved by this the man and his mother approached the high court urging the quashing of this FIR registered at the women police station, Anantnag under Sections 498-A (cruelty) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC and Sections 3 (Penalty for giving or taking dowry) and 4 (Penalty for demanding dowry) of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Arguments

Advocate Sheikh Younis, appearing for the husband and his mother, argued that the FIR was vague, mechanically drafted and motivated, and was clearly a counterblast to the divorce and the husband’s second marriage.

He submitted that despite claiming dowry harassment since 2018, the complainant had not made any such allegations in her maintenance or domestic violence proceedings.

Relying on Supreme Court rulings cautioning against the misuse of Section 498-A IPC, the petitioners’ counsel contended that criminal law was being invoked only to harass the family and force an unjust settlement.

Opposing the plea, the state argued that since the investigation was complete and material had been collected, the high court should not exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.

The state also submitted that the pendency of civil or quasi-criminal proceedings did not bar prosecution for cruelty or dowry demand.

Observations

The high court quashed the FIR, observing that allowing the prosecution to continue would amount to an “abuse of the process of law”.

After examining the FIR, case diaries and pleadings in earlier cases, the bench found serious inconsistencies in the complainant’s version and said that while the FIR alleged dowry demand and cruelty during the marriage, “such accusations were conspicuously absent in the earlier proceedings initiated by her”.

Citing Supreme Court’s observations, the court warned that vague allegations in matrimonial disputes require careful scrutiny and that Section 498-A IPC should not be used as a pressure tactic.

“The Court has emphasized the need to strike a balance between safeguarding legitimate grievances and preventing misuse of penal provisions for personal vendetta,” the bench said.

The court also recorded that the complainant herself admitted she had been living separately since July 2022 and was not residing in the matrimonial home when the FIR was lodged.

Significantly, the FIR itself indicated that the complaint was triggered by the husband’s second marriage, said the bench.

Justice Parihar pointed out that in the complaint, the woman stated that she was approaching the police because the husband had contracted a second marriage without her consent, making it “abundantly clear” that the criminal case was a reaction to that event.

The bench further flagged the delay in lodging the FIR, observing that such delay raises the possibility of “embellishment, exaggeration and introduction of a coloured version”.

Rejecting the state’s objection, the court held that even after completion of investigation, the high court can exercise its inherent powers to prevent misuse of the criminal justice system.