In a significant ruling that underscores the boundaries of criminal law in personal disputes, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has quashed a dowry harassment First Information Report (FIR). The court firmly stated that criminal proceedings must not be allowed to become a weapon for settling personal scores or pursuing individual vendetta.
The Case and the Court's Stern Observation
The bench of Justice Sanjay Parihar was hearing a petition filed by a man and his mother seeking the quashing of an FIR registered against them. The FIR was filed by the man's estranged wife in 2023 at the women's police station in Anantnag. It alleged offences under Sections 498-A (cruelty) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
In its order pronounced on December 26, 2025, the court delivered a powerful message. "While it is true that every offender must be proceeded against in accordance with law, the criminal process cannot be permitted to be used as a tool for settling personal scores or satisfying individual vendetta," the bench observed. It concluded that allowing the prosecution to continue in this case would amount to nothing less than an "abuse of the process of law."
A Timeline of Matrimonial Discord and Legal Battles
The court's decision came after a detailed examination of the tumultuous marital history between the parties. The couple had married in 2016 and had a son. However, the relationship soured, leading the husband to initiate divorce proceedings. He alleged that his wife was unwilling to fulfill her marital obligations. Despite attempts at reconciliation, the marriage ended with a divorce decree in 2022.
Following the divorce, the wife initiated multiple legal actions against her former husband in 2022 itself. These included a petition for maintenance and proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Notably, the dowry harassment allegations were absent in these initial proceedings.
The trigger for the criminal FIR, as identified by the High Court, was the husband's second marriage in 2023. The wife filed the dowry cruelty case that same year, alleging the marriage was conducted without her consent and without mandatory government permission.
Arguments and the Court's Scrutiny of Evidence
Advocate Sheikh Younis, representing the husband and his mother, argued that the FIR was a vague, mechanically drafted, and motivated document. He contended it was a clear "counterblast" to the divorce and the subsequent remarriage. He pointed out the critical inconsistency: the complainant had never raised dowry demands in her earlier maintenance or domestic violence cases, despite now claiming harassment since 2018.
The state government opposed the quashing plea, arguing that since the investigation was complete, the High Court should not interfere using its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
However, Justice Parihar's bench conducted a thorough review of the FIR, case diaries, and earlier pleadings. It found serious inconsistencies in the wife's narrative. The court noted that accusations of dowry demand and cruelty during the marriage were "conspicuously absent" in her prior legal actions.
The delay in lodging the FIR was also flagged by the bench, which observed that such delays often raise the possibility of "embellishment, exaggeration and introduction of a coloured version." Most tellingly, the court recorded that the complainant herself had been living separately since July 2022 and was not in the matrimonial home when the FIR was lodged. The bench stated that the FIR itself indicated the complaint was triggered by the husband's second marriage.
A Precedent Against Misuse and for Judicial Balance
Rejecting the state's objections, the High Court reinforced a crucial legal principle. It held that even after the completion of an investigation, the High Court retains the power to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to prevent the misuse of the criminal justice system.
Citing Supreme Court precedents, the judgment warned that vague allegations in matrimonial disputes require careful scrutiny. It emphasized that stringent provisions like Section 498-A IPC should not be used as a pressure tactic for ulterior motives. "The Court has emphasized the need to strike a balance between safeguarding legitimate grievances and preventing misuse of penal provisions for personal vendetta," the bench summarized.
This ruling serves as a potent reminder of the judiciary's role as a guardian against the weaponization of criminal law in personal conflicts, while simultaneously upholding the rights of genuine victims.
