Click the Play button to listen to article

A protection order passed by a court cannot be used as a shield against criminal investigation, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has observed, clarifying that the police are not barred from examining a complaint alleging an offence against persons who had earlier approached the Court seeking protection.

“Passing of a direction, in a protection matter, does not determine the rights of the parties. The investigating agency is not debarred from looking into a complaint, against any of the persons seeking protection, if an offence is constituted on disclosure, by a complainant. Protection order cannot be a blanket licence to commit any offence or to screen the offender. If a married woman performs second marriage, during subsistence of early marriage, it constitutes an offence,” the Court observed.

Justice M.A. Chowdhary made the observation while disposing of a petition filed by Mohd. Asif Khan, who alleged that his wife had contracted a second marriage without obtaining a divorce from him. The Court directed the police to register a case and proceed in the matter if a cognizable offence was disclosed from the complaint.

Background

The petitioner claimed that he had married respondent No. 5 in March 2024. He alleged that she went missing from their matrimonial home on October 27, 2026, and that two days later, he learnt that she had been enticed away and had contracted another marriage with respondent No. 4, while her marriage with him was still subsisting.

According to the petitioner, he approached the concerned police station seeking legal action against the two respondents. However, despite his allegation that his wife had contracted a second marriage without dissolving the earlier one, no case had been registered.

The petitioner also brought to the Court's notice that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had earlier approached the Srinagar Wing of the High Court by filing a writ petition, seeking protection. A Coordinate Bench, by an order dated October 31, 2026, had directed the official respondents to look into their grievance for providing adequate security and ensure that nobody interfered in their married life. The Bench had, however, expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion regarding the validity of their marriage.

During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the petition could be disposed of with a direction to the police to register a case and investigate if it was found that his wife had contracted another marriage during the subsistence of her marriage with the petitioner.

The counsel appearing for the official respondents stated that they were not averse to the request.

Court's Observations

Accepting the request, the Court clarified that an order passed in a protection petition does not determine the legal rights of the parties and cannot foreclose the investigating agency from examining a subsequent complaint disclosing a cognizable offence.

The Court specifically held that the grant of protection cannot be construed as a licence to commit an offence or as a means of shielding an alleged offender from the process of law.

It observed that where a married woman contracts a second marriage during the subsistence of her earlier marriage, the act constitutes an offence.

The Court's clarification assumes significance in the context of the earlier protection order, which had directed the authorities to ensure that nobody interfered in the couple's married life but had expressly left the validity of their marriage open.

The Court accordingly disposed of the petition, directing the concerned police to register a case and proceed in the matter if a cognizable offence was disclosed from the petitioner's complaint.

The petitioner was directed to lodge a formal complaint before the concerned police station within one week from the date of the order, whereupon the police were to take necessary action.



Tags: