Second Marriage Triggered FIR, Dowry Case an Afterthought: J&K and L High Court Quashes 498A FIR

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently quashed a dowry cruelty FIR registered against a man and his mother, holding that the criminal proceedings were initiated as a retaliatory measure following the man’s second marriage and amounted to an abuse of the criminal process.

The case arose from a 2023 FIR registered at the Women Police Station, Anantnag, under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The FIR was lodged on the complaint of the wife, who alleged that she had been subjected to mental and physical cruelty and harassed for dowry during her marriage with the man.

According to the prosecution, the complainant’s marriage was solemnised in 2016 and a child was born out of the wedlock. It was alleged that after about one year of marriage, she was subjected to harassment over dowry demands and that her father had availed a bank loan of Rs. 16 lakh, part of which was allegedly paid to the husband as dowry. The complainant further claimed that she was thrown out of the matrimonial home in 2022 and that her husband subsequently contracted a second marriage, rendering her life miserable.

The petitioners, however, contended that the FIR was a clear misuse of criminal law. They pointed out that the complainant had left the matrimonial home in July 2022 and that the man had divorced her by pronouncing talaq on three occasions between August and October 2022. Following the separation, the complainant had already initiated proceedings under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance, as well as proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, in August 2022.

The petitioners argued that in those earlier proceedings, there were no allegations of dowry demand or specific instances of cruelty. They submitted that the allegations under Section 498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act were raised for the first time only after the man contracted a second marriage in March 2023. On this basis, it was argued that the FIR was lodged with mala fide intent and as a counterblast to the divorce and subsequent marriage.

Opposing the plea, the prosecution argued that the FIR had been investigated thoroughly and that material collected during investigation, including bank records showing transfer of Rs. 7.95 lakh to the husband, supported the allegations. It was contended that once the investigation was complete and a charge-sheet was ready, the high court ought not to exercise its inherent powers to quash the proceedings.

After examining the FIR, earlier pleadings, and the case diaries, the bench of Justice Sanjay Parihar found significant inconsistencies in the complainant’s version. Court noted that although the complainant claimed she was ousted from the matrimonial home in 2022, she did not initiate any criminal proceedings alleging cruelty or dowry demand at that stage. Instead, she pursued civil and quasi-criminal remedies by filing maintenance and domestic violence cases.

Court observed that the FIR itself disclosed that the immediate trigger for lodging the complaint was the husband’s second marriage. It further noted that neither the FIR nor the statements recorded during investigation specified dates or concrete instances of cruelty or dowry demand. The statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC was described as brief and lacking particulars.

Holding that vague and omnibus allegations, introduced after a considerable delay, cast serious doubt on the genuineness of the prosecution, court concluded that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The FIR and all proceedings arising from it were accordingly quashed to prevent further harassment of the petitioners.

Court clarified that while 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.

Case Title: Shakeel-ul-Rehman and Anr. vs. Station House Officer Women Police Station Anantnag & Anr.

Order Date: December 26, 2025

Bench: Justice Sanjay Parihar