Matrimonial Remedies Can Overlap, But Cruelty Claims Cannot Emerge Selectively: J&K&L High Court Quashes S.498A IPC FIR

However, to substantiate this interlinkage, Justice Sanjay Parihar clarified that any domestic suffering allegedly undergone by the wife would ordinarily surface consistently across such proceedings.

The observation was made while quashing criminal proceedings arising out of an FIR registered under Sections 498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, terming the prosecution an abuse of the process of law.

The petition before the bench was filed by the husband and his mother, who invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge the FIR lodged at the instance of the wife. The petitioners contended that the criminal case was instituted with mala fide intent after the wife had already initiated proceedings under Section 125 CrPC and the Domestic Violence Act, and that the FIR was a retaliatory measure following the husband's second marriage.

Perusal of the record revealed that the marriage between the parties had taken place in 2016 and a child was born from the wedlock. According to the petitioners, matrimonial discord arose after some years, leading to separation. The husband claimed that despite repeated efforts at reconciliation, the relationship could not be salvaged, compelling him to pronounce talaq on three occasions in August, September and October 2022.

After the separation, the wife instituted proceedings under Section 125 CrPC and Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act on 24 August 2022, seeking maintenance and other reliefs. While these proceedings were pending, the wife lodged the impugned FIR in March 2023 alleging that she had been subjected to mental and physical cruelty on account of dowry demands and that her father had taken a bank loan to meet such demands. She further alleged that she had been thrown out of the matrimonial home and that the husband had contracted a second marriage, thereby aggravating her suffering.

The investigation culminated in a finding that offences under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were made out, prompting the police to seek permission to present the charge-sheet during the pendency of the quashing petition.

Justice Sanjay Parihar undertook a detailed scrutiny of the FIR, the earlier proceedings, and the case diaries. The Court noted that prior to lodging the FIR, the wife had already availed civil and quasi-criminal remedies under Section 125 CrPC and the Domestic Violence Act, yet there was a conspicuous absence of allegations relating to dowry demand or sustained physical cruelty in those proceedings.

The Court observed that although the wife claimed to have been thrown out of the matrimonial home in July 2022, she did not initiate criminal proceedings alleging cruelty or dowry harassment at that stage.

In a key observation forming the fulcrum of the judgment, the Court held,

“Strict segregation of proceedings under Section 125 Cr. PC, the Domestic Violence Act, and criminal prosecution under Section 498-A IPC is not always necessary, particularly because allegations of domestic violence, dowry demand, mental cruelty, and physical harassment are often interlinked.”

However, the Court clarified that while overlapping remedies are legally permissible, any domestic suffering allegedly undergone by the wife would ordinarily surface consistently across such proceedings.

In the present case, the Court found material inconsistencies in the allegations, noting that dowry related accusations surfaced for the first time only after the husband contracted a second marriage.

The Court laid considerable emphasis on paragraph 7 of the complaint, where the wife herself stated that she was lodging the FIR because the husband had contracted a second marriage without her consent and without obtaining permission from the Government. This, according to the Court, made it “abundantly clear” that the criminal proceedings were triggered by the second marriage rather than by any immediate or continuing acts of cruelty.

Justice Parihar further noted that although the FIR alleged that dowry demand had been met through a bank loan taken in 2018, there was no explanation as to why such allegations were not raised in the earlier proceedings. The unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with the absence of specific dates, instances, or particulars of cruelty or harassment in the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, cast serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case, the court said.

Relying on a catena of Supreme Court judgments the Court reiterated the need for courts to be cautious in matrimonial disputes, particularly where vague, omnibus and generalized allegations are levelled without specific attribution of roles.

Quoting with approval the Supreme Court's caution against misuse of Section 498-A IPC, the Court observed that while the provision is intended to protect genuine victims of cruelty, it cannot be permitted to become a tool for personal vendetta or arm-twisting. The Court found that the FIR appeared to be a counterblast to the divorce and the husband's second marriage, and that its continuation would amount to abuse of the criminal justice process.

Summing up its conclusions, the High Court held that the continuation of criminal proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR would amount to abuse of the process of law and would serve no ends of justice. Accordingly, the Court quashed the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom.

APPEARANCES:

For Petitioners: Mr. Sheikh Younis, Advocate

Case Title: Shakeel Ur Reham Vs SHO Womens PS Anantnag

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment