1 S. No. 56 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) 92/2024 CrlM(244/2024) AIJAZ AHMAD KHAN AND ORS. …Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Syed Abid Parvaz, Advocate with Mr. Waseem Ramzan Lone, Advocate. Vs. UNION TERRITORY THROUGH WOMENS POLICE STATION BARAMULLA AND ANR ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Hakim Aman Ali Dy.AG for R-1 Mr. T. A. Lone, Advocate, for R-2. CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE O R D E R (ORAL) 03.09.2025 1. In the instant petition, the petitioners herein have invoked the inherent power of this Court enshrined under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS) for quashing the FIR No.01/2024 registered with Women’s Police Station, Baramulla, for the offences under sections 498-A, 354, 342, and 34 IPC (for short “impugned FIR”) 2. The background facts essential for adjudication of the instant petition, as emerge from record would reveal that the respondent 2 herein filed a complaint on 12.02.2024 before respondent 1 herein which resulted into registration of the impugned FIR against the petitioners herein. In the said complaint, it came to be alleged by the complainant- respondent 2 herein that, she, the complainant, got married to the accused-petitioner 1 herein in the year 2015, whereafter, in couple of months, the accused petitioner 1 herein with the aid and assistance of accused petitioner 2 herein being his brother and accused petitioner 3 being his brother-in-law started rude and rough behavior towards the complainant/respondent 2 and also physically and mentally tortured her to extract money and demanded dowry from her and her parental home and upon objecting to the said demands, the accused petitioners hatched a conspiracy for forcibly extracting valuables from the 2 complainant/respondent 2 herein consisting of money and dowry and in the process took the golden ornaments from the complainant/ respondent 2 herein and when the complainant/respondent 2 herein raised voice against such ill treatment, harassment and mental torture and also demands of dowry, the accused persons started calling the bad names besides extending threats to her as also beating in routine manner injuring her physically as well as mentally. It also came to be alleged by the complainant/respondent 2 herein in the complaint that the accused persons crossed all the limits of decency while subjecting the complainant/respondent 2 herein to humiliation, torture and also compelled the complainant/respondent 2 herein to sign on divorce papers produced by them and when the complainant refused to sign the same, the complainant was thrown out of matrimonial home along with her children in odd hours and that had the complainant signed the divorce papers, the accused-husband would have gone for the second marriage as he have had an extramarital affair and that on account of the cruelty, she, the complainant, was subjected to, the complainant/respondent 2 herein was even compelled to commit suicide by the accused persons and that the complainant/respondent 2 herein did not report the matter earlier to the police in order to save the family and the family pride. 3. Petitioners herein have called in question the impugned FIR in the instant petition, inter alia, on multiple grounds, that the sole motive of lodging the impugned FIR is to drag the petitioners owing to the fact that the petitioner 1 herein divorced had the complainant respondent 2 and that the impugned FIR is based on false and baseless allegations aimed at to take revenge from petitioners besides to defame them and their families and that the impugned FIR came to be registered without conducting the requisite preliminary inquiry envisaged by law and that the complaint came to be filed by the complainant/ respondent 2 herein and consequently FIR registered against the petitioners as a matter of abuse and misuse of process of law and that no such specific event or instance had been mentioned by the complainant/respondent 2 herein in the complaint or else in the FIR 3 which would disclose commission of any offence referred in the impugned FIR and that the petitioners 2 and 3 herein have had nothing to do with the matrimonial life between the complainant-respondent 2 and petitioners 2 herein, as they the petitioner 1 and complainant- respondent 2 herein have been living separately and not with the petitioners 2 and 3 and their families. 4. A status report has been filed by the respondent 1 in response to the petition whereas the respondent 2 has chosen not to file any reply to the petition. 5. In the status report filed by respondent 1, it is being stated that a written report came to be submitted by respondent 2 on 27.02.2024 against the accused petitioners and consequently on the basis of the such complaint the FIR under challenge came to be registered and investigation was set into motion, whereupon offences under Section 498-A, 201 and 34 IPC were found to have been committed by the accused-petitioners. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Having regard to the respective submissions of the appearing counsel for the parties inasmuch as the record available on the file, the moot question to be addressed by this Court is as to whether the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed while invoking the inherent power. 7. Perusal of the record in general available on the file and the impugned FIR in particular would manifestly tend to show that indisputably the complainant/respondent 2 herein and petitioner 1 herein have had entered into matrimonial in the year 2015 and as per her own version of the complainant/respondent 2 herein after marriage, the said matrimonial relations remained cordial between for initial few months, however, thereafter she, the complaint/respondent 2 herein came to be subjected to torture and harassment both physically and mentally by the petitioner 1, his brother petitioner 2 and brother-in- law petitioner 3 herein, so much so, it had also been alleged in the complaint that the said conduct continued by the petitioners towards the complainant/respondent 2 herein without any break and that on 26.08.2024 the matter qua the said cruelty, harassment, torture and 4 abuse was reported by way of a complaint by the complainant/ respondent 2 herein resulting into registration of FIR, when the complainant-respondent 2 herein was thrown out from her matrimonial house by the petitioners herein. 8. A closer examination of the complaint as well as FIR would manifestly suggest that no specific date and time has been mentioned by the complainant-respondent 2 qua the said alleged abuse, torture, harassment and cruelty. No explanation worth the name for not reporting the matter earlier to the Police has also been provided in the complaint in this regard except a general contention that for the sake of the family and the family pride the matter was not reported to the Police since 2015 immediately after the alleged abuse, harassment, humiliation and cruelty. Since it is not in dispute that the complainant-respondent 2 did not file any reply to the petition and refuting the contentions of the petitioner 1 that the impugned FIR owes its origin owing to the pronouncement of divorce upon her, and that the FIR, came to be got registered as a retaliatory measure by the respondent 2 herein against the petitioners herein for wrecking vengeance, therefore, the said contention of the petitioners cannot, but said to have been admitted by the complainant-respondent 2 in the complaint/FIR manifestly appears to be an afterthought and an outcome of the said divorce pronounced by the petitioner 1 against the complainant/respondent 2 herein. 9. Having regard to the aforesaid factual position obtaining in the matter, it cannot, but be said that the case set up by the complainant / respondent 2 against the petitioners is attended with an ulterior motive to wreck vengeance against the petitioners. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in case titled as State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supreme Court 604, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed on account of the illustration 7 provided therein the said judgment which reads as under: “Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for 5 wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 10. Viewed thus, for what has been observed, considered and analyzed hereinabove, the instant petition succeeds, as consequence whereof the impugned FIR No.01/2024 dated 27.02.2024 registered with Women’s Police Station, Baramulla is quashed against the petitioners. 11. Disposed of along with connected CrlM. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 03.09.2025 Opinder Whether the order speaking: Yes/No Whether approved for reporting: Yes/No