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.
Justice Rajnesh Oswal cam e to the conclusion that “Needless to say that the FIR can be quashed only when same does not disclose commission of cognizable offence or the same has been lodged with ulterior motive in order to wreck vengeance or has been lodged in utter disregard of statutory provision of law. None of the conditions are existing in the instant case, as such, the present petition is found to be without merit and the same is dismissed along with connected application”.