Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has quashed the First Information Report (FIR) registered  under Section 498-A (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), against the petitioner, Sumesh Chadha, the maternal uncle of the complainant woman’s husband.

A Single judge bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal, presiding over the Jammu bench of the High Court, deprecated the practice of involving distant relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes without substantial allegations. The court observed that the complainant (respondent no.2) had attempted to implicate the petitioner as a pressure tactic for the husband’s family to yield to her demands of handing over her high value jewellery/ stridhan.

“The petitioner has been arrayed as accused only to pressurize him to persuade his sister, nephew and brother-in-law to hand over the jewelry/articles to the complainant,” the court noted.

The complainant alleged deceit, financial fraud, emotional abuse, and harassment during her marriage. She stated that she had married her husband in 2019 after a registered marriage in the United Kingdom (UK) and later a ceremonial marriage in Jammu. The complainant accused her husband and his family of misrepresenting their financial and professional status before marriage. She also alleged financial exploitation, including the demand for large sums of money, mistreatment during her IVF treatment, and emotional harassment that ultimately led to the breakdown of the marriage. Additionally, she claimed that her husband withdrew his consent for the IVF procedure at the last moment, causing her significant distress.

In her complaint, she also implicated her husband’s maternal uncle, alleging that he was present at a family meeting in London, where she and her family were harassed and humiliated. She accused him of participating in false accusations against her and pressuring her family.

On the other hand, the petitioner contended that he had no role in the marital disputes and was being falsely implicated. It was argued that he was neither residing with the complainant nor directly involved in any alleged acts of cruelty, and his mere presence at a family meeting could not justify criminal proceedings under IPC 498-A. The petitioner pointed out that the FIR has been registered against him just because he has been nominated for the purpose of handing over the jewellery to the complainant.

The court noted that the petitioner appeared to have been named solely because he was allegedly nominated by other accused persons for handing over the wife’s jewellery and articles, which, according to her, were in possession of her husband and his family in the United Kingdom.

The court further emphasised that even in the complainant’s own statements, there was no incriminating material against the petitioner. Instead, he was arrayed as an accused to pressure him into persuading the complainant’s husband and his family to return her belongings.

Relying on Payal Sharma vs. State of Punjab and Anr. (2024), the court warned against misuse of IPC 498-A as a coercive measure and that emphasised that false implication of distant relatives in matrimonial disputes should be discouraged.

The court concluded that “the continuance of the investigation against the petitioner shall be nothing but an abuse of process of law.”

Accordingly, the court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner.

 

Cause Title: Sumesh Chadha vs. UT of J&K and Anr. [CRM(M) No. 489/2024]

Appearance: For Petitioner-Advocates Sachin Gupta and Arsha Sharma; For Complainant- Senior Advocate Pranav Kohli with Advocate Radhika Wahi; For UT of J&K- Deputy Advocate General Pawan Dev Singh.