IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Cruelty – Pace at which false accusations of dowry demand, dowry harassment and domestic violence have surged in recent past is a matter of concern for society as a whole.
(2) Courts are obliged to balance justice and fairness.

JUDGMENT

Petitioners have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court, in terms of Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), for quashment of FIR No. 0024, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, & 506 IPC of Police Station, Women Cell, Udhampur, the charge sheet presented in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udhampur [“the trial Court”] and the consequent cognizance taken by the trial court against the petitioners and proforma respondents vide order dated 12.11.2024.

2. As factual narration of the present case would unfurl, on 05.11.2024 Police Station, women Cell Udhampur received an application dated 04.11.2024 from SSP, Udhampur, filed by respondent No. 2 against her husband-the proforma respondent and the petitioners-parents-in-laws for registration of FIR, stating inter alia that she was married to the proforma respondent on 26.11.2023 as per Hindu Rites and they cohabited after the marriage. It was alleged by the complainant that one and a half month after the marriage, petitioners and proforma respondent asked for divorce on the pretext that she was unable to conceive. It was also alleged that petitioner No.1 demanded dowry in the shape of LCD, motor cycle and gold ornaments and that all the accused persons i.e. petitioners and proforma respondent had beaten and harassed the complainant several times and neither she was not allowed to enter the matrimonial house nor paid the maintenance.

3. Pertinently, the complainant goes on to allege that on 19.03.2024 at 11:30 p.m., accused persons abused her in the name of her parents, beat and threw her out from the matrimonial home. She made several attempts to return to the matrimonial fold after 19.03.2024 but was not allowed. She was subjected to physical and mental cruelty and threatened to be killed. It was also alleged that on 28.10.2024 she filed an application and reported the incident to SHO, Women Cell, Police Station Udhampur, but no action was taken.

4. On the receipt of this report, FIR in question came to be lodged against the petitioners and proforma respondent-husband of the complainant. The investigation culminated in the impugned charge sheet and vide impugned order dated 12.11.2024, learned trial Court took cognizance of the matter.

5. The case set up by the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 being M.A., B.Ed. is a highly qualified entrepreneur and is running a hotel in the name and style of “M/S Hotel Chanakaya” at Udhampur and petitioner No. 2 retired as a Senior Executive from J&K Bank Ltd. Their son, the proforma respondent married the complainant/respondent No. 2 on 26.10.2023 without dowry.

6. It is alleged by the petitioners that right from the inception of the marriage, behavior of respondent No. 2 was abusive and she forced her husband to live separately and demanded partition of the property. Petitioners were harassed and threatened. However, their son started living separately with his wife-the complainant. According to the petitioners, since demand of the complainant for partition was not met, she of her own left the matrimonial house in March, 2024 and did not return thereafter. On 19.09.2024, it is stated, the complainant along with her father, respondent No. 3 made an attempt to force their entry into the house of the petitioners. They filed a complaint, under Section 12 of Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [for short, DV Act] against the complainant and her father on 21.09.2024 in the trial court, which subsequently came to be withdrawn on 05.10.2024 due to the intervention of senior members of respective families. The private respondents, according to the petitioners, conspired and filed the impugned FIR with false accusations, to avenge the said complaint.

7. It is also alleged by the petitioners that since the concerned SHO, refused to lodge FIR, due to delay of seven months from the alleged incident of 19.03.2024, father of the complainant/respondent No.3, being a retired pol