An FIR can only be quashed when it does not disclose any cognizable offence, has been lodged with motive of vengeance or in utter disregard of law: High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
There are only three situations where a First Information Report will be quashed, i.e., when it can be established that it does not disclose any cognizable offence, was lodged with the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance or was lodged in utter disregard of the provisions of law. This was held by a single member bench of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir consisting of Justice Rajnesh Oswal in the case of Mohd Shabir v State of Jammu and Kashmir [CRMC No. 84/2014] on 19th July 2021. The petitioner, Mohd Shabir filed the present petition for the purpose of quashing FIR No. 31/2014 dated 6th March 2014 registered with Police Station Surankote against him by Sakina Begum who is respondent No. 2. The petitioner is a retired official from the Central Reserve Police Force who had solemnized marriage with respondent No. 2 on the 20th of November 1995 and had one daughter born in 2008. Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint in the Police Station on 6th March 2014 that her husband had been harassing her constantly and demanding dowry of about Rs. 10 lakhs or 5 marlas of land belonging to her parents. It was alleged that the petitioner threatened that if these demands were not fulfilled, respondent no. 2 would not be allowed to live in his house anymore. During the course of investigation, statements of witnesses and prima facie evidence indicated that these allegations were correct and the petitioner had been harassing respondent no. 2. In the present petition, the petitioner contended that in the past few years, respondent no.2 used to leave their house without informing him or giving any explanation for her absence and after the petitioner opted for premature retirement, he came to know about respondent no.2 spending time with bad company and divorced her as a result. The divorce was allegedly executed before the Notary Public on 13th February 2014. The petitioner claims that the FIR filed against him by the petitioner was only an act on vengeance as its contents were all false and frivolous. For this reason, the petitioner prayed for the quashment of the said FIR. The Court held that the prima facie evidence indicated that respondent’s complaint had at least some truth to it and the petitioner’s claim that it was filed out of a revenge motive could not be proven yet. For this reason the case would have to continue and the FIR could not be quashed.
 t HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR S. No. 216 AT JAMMU Mohd. Shabir State of J&K and another CRMC No. 84 2014 IA No. 101 2014 RespondentThrough : Mr. Suyash Singh Chandel Advocate Through : Mr. Adarsh Bhagat GA Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL JUDGE The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of FIR bearing No. 31 2014 dated 06.03.2014 registered with Police Station Surankote District Poonch against him at the behest of respondent No. 2. It is stated that the petitioner is a retired official from Central Reserve Police Force and has solemnized marriage with respondent No. 2 on 20.11.1995 and out of said wedlock one female child was born in the year 2008. It is further stated that initially the behavior of respondent No. 2 was good but thereafter her behavior changed altogether. The respondent No. 2 used to leave her house without informing the other family members of the petitioner. The petitioner was posted outside of J&K and as a result of which the petitioner was forced to take premature retirement. It is further stated that as soon as petitioner came to know that the respondent No. 2 was in bad company he divorced her. The said Talak Nama was duly executed before the Notary Public Poonch on 13.02.2014. It is further stated that in petition filed by respondent No. 2 for maintenance respondent No. 2 had admitted before the learned Magistrate that she is in receipt of divorce deed dated 13.02.2014 and even after the divorce the respondent No. 2 has filed false and frivolous FIR against the petitioner. 2 CRMC No. 84 2014 So precisely the case of the petitioner is that after the divorce the respondent No. 2 in order to wreck vengeance had lodged the FIR in question against the petitioner. Compliance report stands filed in which it is stated that on 06.03.2014 complainant respondent No. 2 namely Sakina Begum lodged a written complaint in Police Station Surankote Poonch that she is inhabitant of Village Surankote and had married to one Mohd. Shabir petitioner herein since last twenty years and out of that marriage she had one girl child. It is further stated that her father has expired and now her husband petitioner has been harassing her time and again and demanding more dowry of cash of Rs. 10 lakh or 05 Marlas land of her parents on roadside if she wants to live in his home otherwise he will not allow her to live in his home. On the said complaint FIR bearing No. 31 2014 for commission of offence under section 498 A RPC has been registered at Police Station Surankote. During the course of investigation statements of the respondent No. 2 and witnesses have been recorded and Investigating Officer has proved offence under section 498 A RPC against the petitioner herein. Mr. Suyash Singh Chandel learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the submissions made in the petition. Mr. Adarsh Bhagat GA submits that these are disputed question of facts and cannot be adjudicated upon in a petition filed under section 561 A Cr.P.CJUDGE Whether the order is speaking: Whether the order is reportable: 