Using Criminal Law for vengeance cannot be allowed: HC
02/09/2025
JAMMU, Sep 1: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed an FIR filed in Nowshera against an 85-year-old man and his sons, ruling that the allegations stemmed from a family property feud and were a blatant misuse of criminal law to settle personal scores.
Justice Rajesh Sekhri, while allowing CRM(M) No. 786/2022 filed by Nanak Chand and others, observed that the complainant, daughter-in-law of the petitioner, had attempted to give a civil dispute a criminal colour, and that such "malicious litigation" could not be permitted.
The complainant alleged that after locking her house and leaving with her husband, she returned to find the petitioners had broken in, assaulted her, tore her clothes, outraged her modesty, and stolen gold and cash. On this basis, FIR No. 208/2022 was registered under Sections 457, 382, 354, 427, 323, and 506 of the IPC at Police Station Nowshera.
The petitioners argued that the FIR was fabricated to exert pressure on Nanak Chand, who had earlier cancelled a power of attorney and will deed executed in favour of his eldest son (the complainant's husband) and further disinherited him through a registered deed in 2018.
They contended that the allegations were improbable, pointing out that one son was serving in the CRPF in Jharkhand, while another was settled in Manali, away from the scene of the alleged crime. The petitioners claimed the FIR was part of a larger effort by the complainant and her husband to reclaim property rights revoked by the elderly father.
Justice Sekhri noted that while police investigations cannot normally be halted at the threshold, courts are empowered under Section 482 CrPC to intervene when proceedings are patently malicious.
"Allegations that an 85-year-old father-in-law, along with his sons, assaulted the complainant, tore her clothes, outraged her modesty and stole ornaments are not only absurd and inherently improbable, but are actuated with malice."
He added that criminal law must not be misused as a tool for vengeance in personal or family disputes.
The court held that the case was essentially a domestic feud over property rights wrongly projected as a criminal offence. It ruled that the FIR had been filed "to wreak vengeance" and "feed fat the grudge" of disinheritance, and therefore ordered its quashing along with all proceedings arising from it.
Share This Story |
|
Comment On This Story |
|
|
|
|