Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Muzafar Hussain Farooqui And Others vs Union Territory Of J&K And Another on 14 October, 2025
Author: Vinod Chatterji Koul
Bench: Vinod Chatterji Koul
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
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.
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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.
