The central legal point established in the judgment is the cautious exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of the process of court and secure the ends of justice.

JUDGMENT :

1. Inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A Cr.P.C. (now 482 Cr.P.C. is being invoked by the petitioner seeking quashment of FIR bearing No. 18/2014, dated 02.04.2014 registered with Police Station, Woman Cell, Canal Road, Jammu for commission of offences punishable under sections 498-A RPC (for brevity 'impugned FIR').

2. The factual matrix of the matter, as reflected from the complaint, which came to be filed by the respondent No. 3 herein is that the marriage of the complainant- respondent No. 3 herein was solemnized with the petitioner-Abdul Qayoom on 08.11.2006. It is alleged in the complaint that after marriage petitioner started misbehaving with the complainant and his attitude became cruel and hostile towards the complainant and her parents. It is alleged that after marriage she came to know that petitioner is a divorcee from his first marriage which had taken place in the year 1990 and out of the said marriage he has three children. It is alleged that with the financial assistance from the parents of the complainant-respondent No. 3 herein, the petitioner has constructed a house at Narwal, Jammu and after the construction work of the house was over, the petitioner again demanded dowry from the complainant. The parents of the complainant-respondent No. 3 again fulfilled the desire of the petitioner and both of them shifted to Jammu and started living in the newly constructed house, however, petitioner started neglecting her and in spite of repeated request, there was no change in the attitude and conduct of the petitioner. It was also alleged that conduct of petitioner was never smooth and cordial with the complainant-respondent No. 3 herein. It is alleged in the complain that even one day petitioner tried to kill her, but she escaped from the clutches of the petitioner and ultimately on 10.11.2013 she was thrown out of the matrimonial house by the petitioner and since then she is residing with her parents in her parental house.

3. Mr. Basit M. Keng, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is an innocent person and has not committed any offence, but the complainant-respondent No. 3 has filed a false and frivolous complaint against the petitioner-herein before respondent No. 2. It is stated that petitioner got married to respondent No. 3 who was a divorcee from her first marriage with the consent of all the family members and mostly stayed together at Rajouri or Poonch as the petitioner who is a government servant was mostly posted there. Only after a few days from the marriage, the attitude of the respondent No. 3 towards the petitioner and his family members became cruel and hostile. She would abuse the old parents of the petitioner and would not allow the petitioner to meet or maintain his children from his first marriage. It is further stated that petitioner tried to bear this attitude so as to make his marriage woth, but to no avail. Eventually, after seven long years of bearing the hostility, antagonism and cruelty, the petitioner divorced the respondent No. 3 in accordance with Muslim Shariat Law.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after receiving dower (Haq Mehar) the respondent No. 3 started harassing the petitioner and also threatened to lodge a complain against him. In order to avoid all such further acts, petitioner filed a civil suit for declaration declaring the respondent No. 3 under the light of the Talaqnama dated 10.11.2013, as a divorced lady, with a further direction to the respondent No. 3 not to call the petitioner her husband in which notices were issued to the respondents and the matter is still pending before the Court of learned Munsif, Rajouri.

5. The petitioner-herein challenges the impugned FIR No. 18/2014 on the following grounds:-

(i) That the impugned Fir registered against the petitioner for offences under section 498-A RPC is completely false and frivolous;

(ii) That the impugned FIR filed against the petitioner is nothing but a