Asha Rani & Ors vs Harsh Bala & Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 2338 J&K

15. In the aforesaid backdrop of exposition of law by Hon'ble Supreme

Court, Courts are obliged to strike a balance of justice and fairness, i.e., to

ensure that anti-dowry and anti-domestic violence laws are in place to protect

the genuine victims of crime and to safeguard the rights of accused from false

accusations.

16. If the present case is analyzed and approached with the principles of law

enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) and Dara

Lakshmi Narayana (supra), it is manifest that complainant has levelled

omnibus accusations not only against her husband (now deceased), but also her

90-year-old mother-in-law and all the members of her in-laws' family without

indicating their active involvement in any incident related to dowry demand or

dowry harassment.

17. The allegation of the complainant is that after the marriage, her husband

started demanding dowry at the instigation of his mother, petitioner no. 1 herein,

and compelled her to bring Rs. 2.00 lacs from her parents to purchase a vehicle

as a condition to accept her. On refusal, she was beaten by her husband, who left

her along with their daughter at Rajouri. Thereafter, she was continuously

threatened on phone by her husband and his parents. The complainant goes on

to allege that a couple of months prior to the filing of the impugned complaint,

her husband and his mother revealed in a Biradari that her husband had re-

married with one Ritu and she would be accepted as a wife only if she pays Rs.

2.00 lacs to them. Preliminary statements of the complainant and witnesses were

recorded by the trial court in support of the complaint, whereby they made same

sweeping allegations. It is evident from a sheer glance at the contents of the

impugned complaint and statements of the complainant and witnesses that she

has made generalized allegations against her husband and mother-in-law

(petitioner no. 1 herein). There is no specific allegation against rest of the

petitioners-other family members of the in-laws. Even the allegations of the

complainant against her husband and mother-in-law are without specific details

as to the time, date or place of the incidents. There is nothing in the impugned

complaint to suggest that complainant ever approached the Police Station or the

Court against the alleged dowry demands of her husband and mother-in-law

from time to time. The concerned inquiry officer of the Police Station, without

looking into this vital aspect of the matter, made a report in the trial court in a

routine fashion against the petitioners and husband of the complainant, and

learned trial court, in a mechanical fashion, issued process against the

petitioners, which is preposterous.

18. It appears that complainant, due to some matrimonial discord, has

implicated her in-laws and her late husband in false and frivolous accusations of

dowry demand with an ulterior motive to wreck vengeance.

19. It is pertinent to mention that this Court was informed by learned counsels

for the parties that husband of the complainant passed away during the currency

of the complaint in the trial court. The Court requested learned counsel for the

complainant to seek instructions from her client as to whether she wished to

continue with the prosecution after the demise of her husband and the

complainant decided to pursue the complaint.

20. Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the present petition on

the solitary premise that impugned complaint was preferred in the trial court on

20.07.2009 and therefore, the present petition at this length of time, after a gap

of about 10 years, is liable to be dismissed.

21. The law of limitation is based on public policy. The principle traces its

origin to the Limitation Act, 1963, which is the primary legislation and provides

the time limits within which a party can approach the Court to seek the relief.

The legislation emphasizes efficiency and transparency by setting strict

timelines for each stage of litigation. Yet, acknowledging that there may be

valid reasons for delay, the law makes provision for Condonation of Delay,

which enables Courts to entertain cases even after the expiry of the statutory

limitation period, provided sufficient cause is shown. The sufficient cause is

significantly reliant on the bona fide nature of the explanation offered. The

judiciary, by and large, upholds the sanctity of the time-bound objective of law

to ensure that continuation of proceedings does not defeat its core purpose.

However, it is by far crystallized now that while statutes of limitation are meant

to promote timely legal action, they should not be used to defeat substantive

justice.

22. There is no quarrel to the settled position of law that where no limitation

is prescribed in the statute to approach an appropriate forum, the aggrieved

person must come to the Court within a "reasonable period of time" because if

inordinately delayed litigations are accepted by the Courts, there would be no

end to the litigation, due to which, neither a litigation would proceed nor

conclude within timelines provided under law. A party invoking inherent

jurisdiction of the High Court must meet the test of "reasonable dispatch". What

constitutes "Reasonable Time" would depend upon facts and circumstances of

each case and ideally means a period that is not manifestly unreasonable. In

other words, the time required by a conscious litigant to approach the Court.

Therefore, Courts are obliged to strike a balance between adherence to

procedural rules and the need to ensure that a deserving case is decided on

merits because the term "sufficient cause" is not to be rigidly construed but

liberally interpreted to advance substantial justice. When faced with a choice

between substantial justice and technical considerations, Courts must prefer

substantial justice over technicalities of delay.

23. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Wajid and Anr. V. State of U.P

& Ors; 2023 SCC Online SC 951, has held that if an accused invokes inherent

jurisdiction or extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court on the ground that

complaint or the FIR, as the case may be, is manifestly frivolous, vexatious or

instituted with ulterior motive to wreck vengeance, the High Court owes a duty

to examine the allegations a little more closely and the Court need not restrict

itself to the stage of the case only but is empowered to take into account the

overall circumstances leading to the registration of the case and the material

collected in the course of the enquiry or investigation.

Relevant excerpt of the judgment reads as below:-

"34. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking Vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be jus enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under section 482 of the CrPC, 1973 or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRS assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged."

24. Again Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anil Babu (supra) has ruled that mere

delay by itself cannot be a ground to refuse the invocation of inherent

jurisdiction by the High Court, if continuation of a vexatious trial leads to

miscarriage of justice.

Relevant observation captured in para 10, reads as below:-

"Mere delay by itself cannot be a ground in refusing the invocation of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if it otherwise leads to miscarriage of justice. The continuation of the trial in the absence of a charge being made out, would be against the liberty granted to an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

25. It is evident from the aforesaid principle of law, enunciated by the Apex

Court, on delay and laches that if continuation of a criminal trial or prosecution

is an abuse of the process of law and results in miscarriage of justice, it is the

duty of the High Court to exercise the inherent jurisdiction, because the solitary

purpose of invocation of inherent jurisdiction by the High Court is that a Court

proceeding ought not be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or

persecution.

26. If the case on hand is approached with the aforesaid principle of law in

mind, it is clear that the complainant preferred the impugned complaint in the

trial court with an ulterior motive against the petitioners and her husband to feed

fat the grudge of some matrimonial discord. Unfortunately, the complainant

refused to withdraw the prosecution even after the demise of her husband. The

omnibus allegations in the impugned complaint do not disclose the commission

of any offence against the petitioners.

27. For what has been observed and discussed above, the present petition is

allowed and impugned complaint is quashed.

28. Disposed of.

(Rajesh Sekhri) Judge

JAMMU 14.10.2025 Abinash

Whether the judgment is speaking? Yes Whether the judgment is reportable? Yes