CRMM No.313/2023 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR … CRM(M) no.313/2023 Reserved on: 15.07.2025 Pronounced on: 14.10.2025 Uploaded on: 14.10.2025 Whether operative part or full judgment is pronounced: Yes Muzafar Hussain Farooqui and others …….Petitioner(s) Through: Mr M. Ashraf Wani, Advocate V/s Union Territory of J&K and another ……Respondent(s) Through: Mr Jahingeer A. Dar, GA CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE JUDGEMENT 1. Petitioners are seeking quashment of charge sheet no.42/2023 dated 25th May 2023 in FIR no.33/2023 under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code (IPC) registered in police station Bandipora and presented before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bandipora. 2. I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter. I have gone through the material on the file. 3. Petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 herein are husband and wife. They had entered into marriage on 21st January 2021. Some dispute arose between duo. Respondent no.2 left marital home and started living with CRMM No.313/2023 her parents. She filed a complaint dated 24th February 2023 before National Commission for Women, accusing harassment by all petitioners. Impugned FIR came to be registered. Petitioner no.1 was arrested. Additional Special Mobile Magistrate granted him bail. Charge sheet came to be filed on 25th May 2023. Complaints also poured in against petitioner no.1 by respondent no.2 before Directorate of Health Services, Kashmir. Chief Medical Officer, Baramulla, issued show cause notice dated 23rd February 2023 against petitioner, to which he filed his reply. 4. According to learned counsel for petitioners, impugned FIR is imbued with falsehood, frivolousness and is only aiming at wreaking vengeance. He also avers that respondent no.2 has made accusations against petitioners 1&2 whereas charge sheet has been presented against all petitioners. Learned counsel submits that ingredients of Section 498A IPC are absent in impugned charge sheet because there is no cruelty prima facie established or proved against petitioners. There is no material or evidence on record to show any conduct or act on the part of petitioners amounting to offence under Section 498A IPC. Even plain reading of complaint and charge sheet would show allegations made therein are so patently absurd, vague, and frivolous that a prudent person can reach to a conclusion that impugned FIR and charge sheet lacks in basic ingredients. It is being also stated that there is huge delay in registration of FIR. Complainant, Respondent no.2 herein, had accused only petitioners 1&2 but charge sheet has been filed against all the petitioners which reflects mala fides in the entire process. CRMM No.313/2023 Respondent no.2 has made omnibus allegations against petitioner and his relatives and has falsely implicated them to harass them. Allegations at the most appear to be a civil matrimonial dispute, as such, initiation of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law. Learned counsel for petitioners asserts that impugned FIR could not have been registered because offence under Section 498A IPC is both cognizable and non-cognizable. It would be cognizable when it is registered at the instance of victim or by a person related to her by blood relation or by a public servant which, in this case, according to petitioners, is absent, therefore, makes case a non-cognizable. He has made reference to Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1, and Taramani Parakh v. State of M.P. (2015) 11 SCC 260. 5. Provisions of Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure have been invoked by petitioners for quashing proceedings on the ground that allegations are frivolous, vague, baseless, and that on the grounds taken by him amounts to abuse of process of law. Thus, it would be first proper to go through impugned FIR. It reveals that on 25th February 2023, police station Saddar received a letter National Commission for Women, Government of India, New Delhi, accompanied by a complaint of one Maryam Akhter D/o Mumtaz Ahmad Shah R/o Kunan District Bandipora, concerning harassment of married woman/dowery harassment. In that complaint, complainant has stated that she is resident of revenue village of Kunan Bandipora and petitioner no.1, who is working as Medical Officer (Ayush under National Health Mission in District Baramulla) is her husband, whose marriage took CRMM No.313/2023 place in 2021. Her allegation is that petitioners had been ruthlessly subjecting her to physical torture and demanding dowry from her father which she could not afford, with the result her husband seized all her gold ornaments worth Rs.30.00 lacs and other assets. It is also alleged by complainant/respondent no.2 that her in-laws have also been harassing and mentally torturing her and, therefore, she is in bad condition. Charge sheet filed before the Trial Court more or less contains same set of allegations engrossed in impugned FIR. 6. As regards powers of National Commission for Women is concerned, it has powers to investigate and examine all matters relating to safeguards provided for women under the Constitution and other laws. It has also powers to take up the cases of violation of provisions of the Constitution and of other laws relating to women with appropriate authorities. It has also powers to look into complaints and take suo moto notice of matters relating to deprivation of women’s rights or non- implementation of laws enacted to provide protection to women and also to achieve objective of equality and development or non- compliance of policy decisions, guidelines or instructions aimed at mitigating hardships and ensuring welfare and providing relief to women, and take up the issues arising out of such matters with appropriate authorities; and call for special studies or investigations into specific problems or situations arising out of discrimination and atrocities against women and identify the constraints so as to recommend strategies for their removal. All these powers and functions are contained in Section 10 of National Commission for Women Act, CRMM No.313/2023 1990, to be performed by National Commission for Women. Thus, all that is done by National Commission for Women has been performed under and in terms of the provisions of the Act. 7. It is pertinent to mention here that petitioner no.1 is husband of complainant/respondent no.2. Petitioner no.2 is brother of petitioner no.1, and therefore brother-in-law of respondent no.2. Petitioner no.3 is maternal uncle of petitioners 1&2. Petitioner no.4 is wife of petitioner no.4. And petitioner no.5 is mother of petitioner no.1 and, thus, mother- in-law of respondent no.2. The immediate relation, if any exists, is between petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2. Allegations encompassed in impugned FIR, echoed in impugned Challan as well, are, on the face of it and by all means, against petitioner no.1 and rest of petitioners appear roped in as being relation of petitioner no.1. 8. It was incumbent upon respondent no.1 to conduct preliminary inquiry before registering FIR against petitioners as matter related to matrimonial dispute. By doing that respondent no.1 could have avoided abuse of process of law. Lalita Kumari’s case (supra) has laid down guidelines qua registration of FIR. It is said by the Supreme Court that FIR is a pertinent document in criminal procedure law and its main object from the point of view of informant is to set criminal law in motion and from the point of view of investigating authorities is to obtain information about alleged criminal activity so as to be able to take suitable steps to trace and to bring to book guilty. It is also said by the Supreme Court that condition that is sine qua non for recording an FIR is that there must be information and that information must disclose CRMM No.313/2023 a cognizable offence. If any information disclosing a cognizable offence is led before an officer in charge of police station satisfying requirement of Section 154 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, said officer has no other option except to enter substance thereof in prescribed form that is to say, to register a case on the basis of such information. The provision of section 154 Cr.P.C. is mandatory and concerned officer is duty bound to register a case on the basis of information disclosing cognizable offence. However, it has been held by the Supreme Court that there may be instances where preliminary inquiry may be necessary before registering an FIR, e.g. matrimonial disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases etc. Such inquiry would be to ascertain as to whether information reveals any cognizable offence. While ensuring and protecting rights of accused and complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound. 9. The case in hand relates to matrimonial discord. Perusal of complaint makes it clear that it contains allegations to the exclusion of all others against husband/petitioner no.1 by his wife/respondent no.2 regarding demand of dowry, harassment and cruelty. Those allegations were required to be inquired into during investigation as those mainly have been hurled against petitioner no.1 as being husband of respondent no.1. Rest of petitioners, viz. petitioners 2 to 5 have been unnecessarily roped in because allegations contained in impugned FIR do not in any manner make out a case against them. Thus, petitioners 2 to 5 require to be given a sigh of relief by allowing petition to their extent inasmuch CRMM No.313/2023 as they have been unnecessarily roped in, more particularly when matrimonial dispute is between petitioner no.1 and respondentno.2 which is also evident from complaint, impugned FIR and charge sheet. 10. Mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud has been so said by the Supreme Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and another, (2024) INSC 953 : (2024) 12 SCR 559 : 2024 SCC Online SC 3682. 11. It is a well-recognized fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalized and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularized allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. The courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. 12. The Supreme Court remarked that the inclusion of Section 498A IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section CRMM No.313/2023 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against husband and his family by a wife. 13. The Supreme Court stated that making vague and generalized allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, leads to the misuse of legal processes and encourages the use of arm-twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498A IPC against husband and his family in order to seek compliance with unreasonable demands of a wife. 14. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony. The main purpose whereof is to enable young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in criminal case. Reference is made to G. V. Rao v. L. H. V. Prasad (2000) 3 SCC 693. 15. The Supreme Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting husband and his family in absence of a clear prima facie case against them. The Supreme Court has clarified that it is not suggesting that any woman who has suffered cruelty, as defined under Section 498A IPC, should remain silent or refrain from making a complaint or initiating criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court in the above cited case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana held that High Court erred in not exercising powers available to it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. thereby failed to CRMM No.313/2023 prevent abuse of the Court’s process by continuing criminal prosecution against the accused persons and set-aside the order of the High Court and quashed FIR and charge sheet. 16. When the case in hand is examined in the context of law laid down by the Supreme Court and having regard to facts and circumstances of the instant case discussed herein before, there is no denial to the fact that petitioners 2 to 5 have unnecessarily been implicated in the complaint, impugned FIR and charge sheet, and proceedings to their extent need not be proceeded. At the most, petitioner no.1, who is husband of complainant/respondent no.2, shall brave the proceedings. In that view of matter, impugned FIR and charge sheet are quashed to the extent of petitioners 2 to 5 only. And to that extent instant petition is allowed. 17. Disposed of. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE SRINAGAR 14.10.2025 Imtiyaz Whether approved for reporting? Yes/No.