S. No.56 Suppl.1 List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) No. 832/2025 CrlMNo.2100/2025 Date of pronouncement: 27.12.2025 Uploaded on: 29.12.2025 AIJAZ AHMAD KUMAR …..Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Mir Majid Bashir, Advocate V/s UT OF J&K AND ANOTHER … ..Respondent(s) Through : None CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1. The petitioner through the medium of present petition has challenged the challan, arising out of FIR No.42 of 2023, of Women Police Station, Rambagh, Srinagar and charge sheet for offences under Section 498-A IPC, pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (1st Additional Munsiff) Srinagar. 2. As per allegations made in the charge sheet on 11.06.2023, respondent No.2 lodged a report with the Police alleging therein that she had entered into a wedlock with the petitioner in the year 2020, but after the marriage, the petitioner and his parents have been harassing her. It was also alleged that respondent No.2 has been CRM(M) No.832 of 2025 Page 2 of 4 thrown out of her matrimonial home by the petitioner after giving a beating to her. The Police after investigation of the case and after recording the statements of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C, came to the conclusion that no offence is made out against the parents of the petitioner, while as offence under Section 498-A IPC stands established against the petitioner. Accordingly, the charge sheet was laid before the learned trial Court. 3. The petitioner has challenged the charge sheet on the grounds that the allegations made in the report lodged by respondent No.2 and the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C against the petitioner are omnibus in nature as the same are lacking material particulars. Thus no offence is made out against the petitioner. It has been further contended that respondent No.2 has filed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C against the petitioner on 19.06.2023 in which she had herself stated that the petitioner has deserted her two months before, but she has not leveled any allegation about cruelty against the petitioner. Hence there is admission on the part of respondent No.2 that the petitioner has not indulged in any act of cruelty against her. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record. 5. If we have a look at the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C during the investigation of the CRM(M) No.832 of 2025 Page 3 of 4 case, in the said statement respondent No.2 has alleged that her husband (petitioner herein) was having illicit relations with other women and when she objected to it, he did not refrain from doing so and ultimately on 05.05.2023 he gave a beating to her and forcibly threw her out of household. It has been further alleged that respondent No.2 was subjected to mental and physical harassment by the petitioner. Thus, there are specific allegations made by the complainant in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C indicating the particulars of the date on which she was beaten up and thrown out of the house by the petitioner. She has also stated the reason as to why the petitioner got annoyed with her and conducted himself against her in a manner which caused mental harassment to her. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the allegations made against the petitioner are omnibus or that the same are lacking in material particulars. 6. So far as contention of the petitioner that in the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C filed by respondent No.2 against him, she has not made any allegations of cruelty is concerned, it is to be noted that while filing petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C, the wife has only to plead that her husband has deserted and neglected to maintain her. She is not required to allege cruelty against her husband in the said petition. Therefore, merely because respondent No.2 has omitted to narrate the allegations regarding cruelty in her petition under Section CRM(M) No.832 of 2025 Page 4 of 4 125 Cr.P.C, the same would not make the case of the prosecution doubtful. 7. For what has been discussed hereinbefore, I do not find any merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE SRINAGAR 27.12.2025 Sarveeda Nissar Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Sarveeda Nissar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document every page at bottom left side 29.12.2025 18:06