SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 1681

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
SHAKEEL-UL-REHMAN AND ANR – Appellant
Versus
STATION HOUSE OFFICER POLICE STATION WOMENS ANANTNAG AND ANR – Respondent
CRM(M) 162 / 2023



##PAGE1##

1

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

Case No. CrLM No. 150/2024

CRM(M) No. 162/2023

Reserved on: - 12.12.2025

Pronounced on: - 26.12.2025

Uploaded on: - 26.12.2025

Whether the operative part or full

judgment is pronounced: - Full.

Shakeel-ul-Rehman and Anr. …. Appellant(s)

Through: - Mr. Sheikh Younis, Advocate

V/s

Station House Officer Women Police Station Anantnag &

Anr.

Through: - Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

01. The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to

challenge FIR No. 06/2023 registered under Sections 498-A IPC and Section 4

of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, at Police Station Women, Anantnag, at the

instance of respondent No. 2. The principal ground urged is that the impugned

FIR is a clear abuse of the process of law, having been lodged with mala fide

intent after respondent No. 2 had already resorted to multiple civil and quasi-

criminal proceedings against petitioner No. 1.

02. It is contended that respondent No. 2 had earlier filed a petition under

Section 125 Cr. PC seeking maintenance for herself and the minor child, and

Mohammad Yaseen Dar

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this

document

##PAGE2##

2

had also initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women

from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Both these proceedings were instituted on

24.08.2022, after respondent No. 2 had been divorced by petitioner No. 1.

According to the petitioners, the divorce was necessitated by the conduct of

respondent No. 2, who was married in the year 2016 and had a child out of the

wedlock. It is alleged that after some years of marriage, respondent No. 2 was

unwilling to discharge her marital obligations and intended to ruin the

matrimonial life of petitioner No. 1. Despite repeated attempts at reconciliation,

the matrimonial discord could not be resolved, compelling petitioner No. 1 to

pronounce divorce on three occasions, i.e., on 02.08.2022, 06.09.2022, and

finally on 06.10.2022.

03. It is further alleged that while the aforesaid proceedings under Section

125 Cr. PC and the Domestic Violence Act were pending, and while respondent

No. 2 was residing separately, she, with a view to harass and falsely implicate

petitioner No. 1 and his mother, concocted the present FIR. According to the

petitioners, this is evident from the fact that the allegations contained in the FIR

are inconsistent with the pleadings taken by respondent No. 2 in the earlier

proceedings. It is asserted that the allegation of demand of dowry, now raised

in the FIR, is wholly false, imaginary, and motivated, and is a result of personal

vendetta arising out of the second marriage of petitioner No. 1. It is alleged that

the FIR has been lodged only to subject the petitioners to police harassment and

to coerce them into an unwarranted settlement. It is thus pleaded that the

essential ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out and that even the

investigation conducted by respondent No. 1 has not been fair.

Mohammad Yaseen Dar

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this

document

##PAGE3##

3

04. Upon notice, the respondents filed a status report stating that on

28.03.2023 respondent No. 2 approached the Women’s Police Station,

Anantnag, with a written complaint duly endorsed by the Senior Superintendent

of Police, Anantnag. In her complaint, respondent No. 2 alleged that her

marriage with petitioner No. 1 had been solemnized and that after one year of

marriage she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty and was harassed on

account of dowry demands. It was further alleged that her father had availed a

loan of ₹16.00 lakhs from J&K Bank, out of which part of the amount was paid

to petitioner No. 1 as dowry. She further alleged that in the year 2022 she was

thrown out of the matrimonial home by petitioner No. 1 and his mother, and

that petitioner No. 1 had contracted a second marriage, thereby rendering her

life miserable.

05. On receipt of the complaint, FIR No. 06/2023 under Sections 4

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top