The J&K & Ladakh High Court has quashed a 498A and Dowry Act FIR, holding that cruelty allegations cannot be raised selectively after availing other matrimonial remedies. The Court found the case to be retaliatory and an abuse of criminal law.
SRINAGAR: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court delivered a judgment clarifying how multiple matrimonial remedies can exist together, but criminal allegations of cruelty cannot be raised in a selective and inconsistent manner.
The Court made it clear that while a wife is legally entitled to pursue remedies under Section 125 CrPC, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and Section 498-A IPC, the facts forming the basis of alleged cruelty should normally appear consistently across these proceedings.
When serious allegations surface only at a later stage and appear linked to personal disputes rather than continuous suffering, criminal law cannot be allowed to be used as a pressure tactic.
The Court was dealing with a petition filed by the husband and his mother seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 498-A IPC and provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioners invoked the inherent powers of the High Court, contending that the FIR was lodged with mala fide intent after the wife had already initiated proceedings for maintenance and domestic violence, and only after the husband contracted a second marriage.
As per the record, the marriage between the parties took place in 2016 and a child was born from the wedlock. Over time, matrimonial differences arose and the parties started living separately. The husband stated that despite repeated attempts at reconciliation, the marriage could not be saved, and he ultimately pronounced talaq on three occasions in August, September and October 2022 in accordance with personal law.
After separation, the wife approached the court on 24 August 2022 by filing proceedings under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance and also initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act. While these cases were pending, she lodged the impugned FIR in March 2023, alleging that she had been subjected to mental and physical cruelty due to dowry demands, that her father had taken a bank loan to meet those demands, that she had been thrown out of the matrimonial home, and that the husband had contracted a second marriage.
During investigation, the police claimed to have found offences under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sought permission from the Court to present the charge-sheet. The High Court, however, undertook a detailed examination of the FIR, earlier pleadings, and case diaries.
Justice Sanjay Parihar noted that before filing the FIR, the wife had already taken recourse to civil and quasi-criminal remedies. However, there was a clear absence of allegations relating to dowry demand or sustained physical cruelty in those earlier proceedings. The Court also noted that although the wife claimed she was thrown out of the matrimonial home in July 2022, she did not lodge any criminal complaint at that time alleging cruelty or dowry harassment.
In a crucial observation forming the core of the judgment, the Court held:
“Strict segregation of proceedings under Section 125 Cr. PC, the Domestic Violence Act, and criminal prosecution under Section 498-A IPC is not always necessary, particularly because allegations of domestic violence, dowry demand, mental cruelty, and physical harassment are often interlinked.”
At the same time, the Court clearly explained that overlapping remedies do not mean inconsistent allegations are acceptable. It observed that any domestic suffering allegedly undergone by the wife would ordinarily surface consistently across such proceedings.
On facts, the Court found serious inconsistencies. It noted that dowry-related allegations appeared for the first time only after the husband’s second marriage. The Court placed strong reliance on paragraph 7 of the complaint, where the wife herself stated that she was lodging the FIR because the husband had contracted a second marriage without her consent and without obtaining permission from the Government. According to the Court, this made it “abundantly clear” that the criminal proceedings were triggered by the second marriage rather than by ongoing cruelty.
The Court further observed that although the FIR alleged that dowry demands were met through a bank loan taken in 2018, there was no explanation as to why such serious allegations were never raised in the earlier Section 125 CrPC or Domestic Violence Act proceedings.
The unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with the absence of specific dates, incidents, or detailed particulars of cruelty or harassment in statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, seriously weakened the prosecution case.
Referring to settled Supreme Court jurisprudence, the High Court reiterated that courts must exercise caution in matrimonial disputes where vague, omnibus, and generalized allegations are levelled without clear attribution of roles. The Court quoted with approval the Supreme Court’s repeated warnings that while Section 498-A IPC exists to protect genuine victims, it cannot be allowed to become a tool for personal vendetta or arm-twisting.
The Court found that the FIR was clearly a counterblast to the divorce and the husband’s second marriage, and that allowing such proceedings to continue would amount to misuse of the criminal justice system. It emphasized that criminal law cannot be invoked to settle personal scores or to exert pressure once civil remedies have already been invoked and exhausted.
Summing up, the High Court concluded that the continuation of criminal proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR would amount to abuse of the process of law and would not serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the FIR and all proceedings flowing from it were quashed to prevent further harassment of the petitioners.
Explanatory Table: Laws & Sections Involved In The Case
| Law / Statute | Section | Purpose | How It Featured in This Case |
| Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Section 498-A | Punishes cruelty by husband or relatives | FIR alleged mental and physical cruelty; Court found allegations vague, delayed, and inconsistent |
| Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Section 506 | Criminal intimidation | Added during investigation without specific instances or dates |
| Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 | Sections 3 & 4 | Penalises giving, taking, or demanding dowry | Dowry demand allegations surfaced only after second marriage |
| Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Section 125 | Maintenance to wife and child | Wife had already availed this remedy before lodging FIR |
| Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 | Section 12 | Civil reliefs for domestic violence | Earlier pleadings lacked dowry allegations |
| Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Section 161 | Police examination of witnesses | Statements contained no specific acts or dates of cruelty |
| Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Section 164 | Magistrate-recorded statements | Wife’s statement was brief and without particulars |
| Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Section 482 | Inherent powers of High Court | Used to quash FIR to prevent abuse of process |
| Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 | Section 175 | Safeguards against false prosecution | Referred to while stressing need to prevent misuse |
| Constitution of India | Article 226 (implicit) | Judicial review and protection from abuse | Underlying basis for High Court intervention |
Case Details
- Case Title: Shakeel-ul-Rehman and Another Vs. Station House Officer, Women Police Station Anantnag and Another
- Case Numbers: CrLM No. 150/2024 & CRM(M) No. 162/2023
- Court: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar
- Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Parihar
- Date Reserved: 12.12.2025
- Date Pronounced: 26.12.2025
- Nature of Judgment: Full Judgment
- Petitioners (Accused): Husband and Mother-in-law
- Respondents: State through SHO, Women Police Station Anantnag & Wife (Complainant)
- Counsels for Petitioners: Mr. Sheikh Younis, Advocate
- Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, Government Advocate
- FIR Details: FIR No. 06/2023 | Women Police Station, Anantnag | Sections 498-A & 506 IPC | Sections 3 & 4 Dowry Prohibition Act
Key Takeaways
- Criminal law cannot be used as revenge after divorce or a husband’s second marriage; courts will look at timing and intent.
- If dowry or cruelty was real, it should appear consistently in maintenance and domestic violence cases, not suddenly in a 498A FIR.
- Delayed FIRs with vague and general allegations seriously weaken the prosecution and expose misuse of law.
- Section 498A is meant for genuine protection, not as a pressure tool to settle personal scores against husbands and their families.
- High Courts will step in to quash FIRs where criminal cases are used to harass men after matrimonial disputes break down.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.