Srinagar: The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has quashed an FIR registered under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, holding that the criminal proceedings appeared to have been triggered as a retaliatory measure after the husband contracted a second marriage and that continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
A Single Judge bench of Justice Sanjay Parihar examined the legal record and noted significant inconsistencies between the allegations in the FIR and the earlier civil and quasi-criminal remedies the wife had pursued, including maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC and a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, where there were no specific allegations of dowry demand or sustained cruelty.
According to the court’s order, the impugned FIR was lodged in March 2023, long after earlier proceedings had been instituted, and alleged mental and physical cruelty on account of dowry demands and that the wife had been ousted from the matrimonial home. However, the bench observed that dowry-related accusations were first raised only after the husband’s remarriage, suggesting an ulterior motive rather than genuine grievances.
The High Court highlighted that while overlapping remedies under Section 125 CrPC, the Domestic Violence Act, and Section 498-A IPC are legally permissible, any domestic discord or suffering allegedly endured would ordinarily surface consistently across such proceedings. Prior to the FIR, the wife had not made specific dowry or cruelty allegations in her earlier filings.
The bench also highlighted the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and the absence of specific incidents or dates in the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC, which further cast doubt on the prosecution’s case. Citing Supreme Court guidance that vague, generalized allegations in matrimonial disputes should be curtailed, the court concluded that the continuation of proceedings arising from the FIR would constitute misuse of the criminal justice system and accordingly quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings.
