The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has stepped in to stop what it called a misuse of criminal law in a matrimonial dispute.
Quashing a dowry and cruelty FIR, the Court held that the complaint appeared to be filed as a reaction to the husband’s second marriage, rather than a genuine case of harassment.
The order was passed by Justice Sanjay Parihar, who made it clear that criminal law cannot be used as a pressure tactic in family disputes.
Background of the Case
The case arose from FIR No. 06/2023, registered at the Women Police Station, Anantnag, under Section 498-A of the IPC (cruelty by husband or relatives) and provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Read also:- Allahabad High Court Flags Caveat Lapses at Board of Revenue, Issues Fairness Guidelines
The FIR was lodged by the wife after her marriage with the first petitioner had already broken down.
Before filing the FIR, she had initiated multiple legal proceedings - including a maintenance case under Section 125 CrPC and a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act.
The husband, on the other hand, maintained that he had already divorced the complainant in 2022 after failed attempts at reconciliation and later contracted a second marriage in 2023.
It was after this second marriage that the criminal case was set in motion.
Allegations in the FIR
In her complaint, the woman alleged that she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty soon after marriage and that her family was forced to give dowry.
She claimed that her father had taken a large bank loan, part of which was transferred to the husband.
The FIR also named the husband’s mother, accusing her of harassment.
However, the petitioners argued that these allegations were never raised in earlier proceedings and were introduced much later, only after the second marriage.
Read also:- Jharkhand High Court Orders Eviction from RIMS Land, Directs 72-Hour Clearance of Illegal Encroachments
Court’s Observations
After examining the FIR, earlier pleadings, and investigation records, the Court noticed serious inconsistencies.
The judge pointed out that:
- The wife had already approached courts for maintenance and domestic violence relief, without mentioning dowry demands.
- She had been living separately since mid-2022.
- The FIR was lodged months later, only after the husband remarried.
The bench observed that the FIR itself revealed the trigger for the complaint.
“A careful reading of the complaint shows that the criminal proceedings were initiated only after the second marriage of the petitioner,” the Court noted.
The Court also found that the statements recorded during investigation lacked specific dates or instances of cruelty or dowry demand.
The Court underlined that delay in filing an FIR, especially in matrimonial cases, raises doubts.
It noted that:
- No explanation was given for why criminal law was not invoked earlier.
- Allegations were vague and general in nature.
- Even the statement recorded before the magistrate was brief and without details.
Such omissions, the Court said, weaken the credibility of the prosecution case.
Justice Parihar cautioned against the growing tendency to use Section 498-A as a tool for settling personal scores.
Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the Court stressed that while genuine cases of cruelty deserve protection, false or exaggerated complaints harm the justice system.
“Criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to be used as a tool for settling personal vendetta,” the bench remarked.
Court’s Decision
Holding that continuation of the case would amount to abuse of the legal process, the High Court allowed the petition.
The Court quashed FIR No. 06/2023 and all proceedings arising from it, thereby granting relief to the husband and his mother.
The matter was disposed of on 26 December 2025.
Case Title: Shakeel-ul-Rehman and Another vs SHO Women Police Station Anantnag
Case No.: CRM(M) No. 162/2023
Case Type: Petition under Section 482 CrPC
Decision Date: 26 December 2025
