Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Farhan Hassan Khan vs Union Territory Of J And K And Ors on 3 August, 2026
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
Sr. No.2026:JKLHC-SGR:262
33
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CRM(M) 67/2022 CrlM(240/2022)
FARHAN HASSAN KHAN ...Petitioner(s)/appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Hakim Suhail Ishtiaq, Advocate.
Vs.
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. ...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Mohammad Younis Assisting Counsel.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
03-08-2026
1. The petitioner, through the medium of the present petition, has
challenged FIR No. 12/2020 for offences under Section 498-A and 506 IPC
registered with Police Station, Rainawari, Srinagar.
2. As per contents of the impugned FIR, on 05.03.2020, a written report
was lodged by complainant/respondent No. 3, who happens to be the father-
in-law of the petitioner. In the said complaint, it was alleged that daughter of
the complainant is married to the petitioner since July, 2016, and out of the
said wedlock, a son was born.
3. It is alleged that after the marriage, the petitioner and his
family members, whose names are mentioned in the report, started harassing
and humiliating the daughter of the complainant on one pretext or the other,
as a result of which the life of daughter of the complainant became
miserable. It is further alleged in the complaint that the petitioner has
deserted his wife and minor son at Srinagar since April, 2018, and has
himself absconded to Dubai.
4. It has been further alleged that when the mother, brother and other
family members of petitioner were contacted at Srinagar for settling the
1|Page
issue, they, instead of settling the issue, again started harassing and
2026:JKLHC-SGR:262
threatening the daughter of the complainant which resulted in mental torture
to her.
5. It has also been alleged that apparently the petitioner has entered into
a wedlock with another girl. It is further alleged that all the accused persons
are threatening the daughter of the complainant and that minor son of the
petitioner is suffering from autism, but the family members of the petitioner
are not showing any concern for the same, which has added to the miseries
of his daughter.
6. The petitioner has challenged the impugned FIR on the grounds that
the allegations made therein are vague and lacking in material particulars. It
has been contended that impugned FIR has been lodged after an inordinate
and unexplained delay, as, according to the complainant’s own case, the
petitioner has deserted his wife way back in the month of April, 2018,
whereas, the FIR has been lodged after a delay of about two years which has
remained unexplained.
7. It has also been contended that there are no allegations in the
impugned FIR with regard to any demand of dowry by the petitioner and, as
such, the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR do not qualify to be
cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A of IPC. It has further been
contended that the impugned FIR, to the extent of other family members of
petitioner, stands already quashed by this Court in terms of judgment dated
25.08.2021 passed in CRM(M) No. 85/2020.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the
case.
9. The explanation to Section 498-A IPC, defines “cruelty” as willful
conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit
2|Page
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb, or health of 2026:JKLHC-SGR:262
the
woman, or where the woman is subjected to such harassment as to coerce
her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of any
property or valuable security, or on account of failure by her or any person
related to her to meet such demand.
10. In the present case, a bare perusal of the impugned FIR would reveal
that there has been no demand of dowry emanating from the petitioner or his
relatives from the complainant or his daughter. Therefore, the second part of
definition of “cruelty”, as contained in the Explanation to 498-A IPC, is not
attracted to the facts of the present case.
11. The only allegation leveled by the complainant against the petitioner
is that he, along with his other family members, has been harassing,
intimidating, and torturing the daughter of the complainant and that she has
been deserted by him. In the impugned FIR, neither any details of the
alleged acts of harassment/intimidation are mentioned nor the dates or the
details with regard to events have been mentioned. The specific roles of the
accused are not mentioned in the impugned FIR. There are only omnibus
allegations made in the FIR with regard to harassment and torture of the
daughter of the complainant by the petitioner.
12. The Supreme Court in the case of “Rajesh Sharma Vs. State of UP“
2018 (10) SCC 472, has observed that making of omnibus allegations to
settle matrimonial disputes by initiating proceedings under Section 498-A
IPC over trivial issues are not bona fide in nature and that a judicial notice
has to be taken note of in such proceedings.
13. Again the Supreme Court has in the case of “Kahkashan Kausar @
Sonam Vs. The State of Bihar”, (Criminal Appeal No. 195 of 2022, decided
on 08.02.2022) held that prosecution cannot be continued against the
3|Page
accused on the basis of omnibus and general allegations without assigning
2026:JKLHC-SGR:262
specific role to each of the accused.
14. In view of the foregoing legal position, in the absence of any specific
details with regard to alleged acts of harassment or intimidation from the end
of the petitioner, it cannot be stated that offence under Section 498-A IPC or
any other offence is made out against the petitioner. Criminal law cannot be
set into motion against the petitioner on the basis of omnibus allegations
leveled in the complaint lodged by the complainant. It appears that the father
of the unfortunate girl has tried to settle the matrimonial dispute of his
daughter with the petitioner by setting the criminal law in motion, which is
impermissible in law
15. In view of what has been discussed above, coupled with the fact that,
on similar allegations, the FIR against the other petitioners stands already
quashed, this petition is allowed and the impugned FIR and the proceedings
emanating therefrom are quashed.
(SANJAY DHAR)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
03-08-2026
Junaid
4|Page
