{"id":271087,"date":"2022-08-03T11:00:12","date_gmt":"2022-08-03T05:30:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=271087"},"modified":"2022-08-12T17:59:52","modified_gmt":"2022-08-12T12:29:52","slug":"jk-and-ladakh-hc-courts-must-carefully-scrutinize-the-allegations-of-matrimonial-crimes-against-a-husbands-relatives","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/03\/jk-and-ladakh-hc-courts-must-carefully-scrutinize-the-allegations-of-matrimonial-crimes-against-a-husbands-relatives\/","title":{"rendered":"J&K and Ladakh HC| Courts must carefully scrutinize the allegations of matrimonial crimes against a husband’s relatives"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

\n

Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court<\/span>: While deciding the instant petition wherein the Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar deliberated upon 2 important issues\u00e2\u20ac\u201d firstly, approach<\/i> of the Courts while examining allegations against relatives of a husband accused of matrimonial crimes; secondly<\/i>, approach of investigating agencies while undertaking investigation of the offences stated to have taken place about few years prior to the lodging of the FIR. The Court held that, in matters of matrimonial crimes, allegations against a husband’s relatives must be carefully scrutinized by the Courts. Sanjay Dhar, J., also observed that Section 473<\/a>, CrPC<\/a> gives jurisdiction to a Court to take cognizance of an offence beyond the prescribed period of limitation in certain cases like cruelty to women etc.<\/p>\n

Facts of the case: <\/span>On 18-10-2021<\/span>, an FIR was lodged <\/span>with the Women’s Police Station, Rambagh, Srinagar, against the petitioners by the complainant-wife. In the report it was alleged that about seven years back, she had married the petitioner Azhar Hassan Masoodi out of which, a son was born. It was further alleged that she was being subjected to mental and physical torture after her marriage in connection with demands of dowry. The wife also levied allegations of harassment and stated that she was being threatened with divorce. In the report it was also alleged that on 29-09-2015<\/span> she was thrown out of her matrimonial house along with her minor child. As regards the delay in lodging FIR, the wife stated that there were talks of compromise going on between the parties, which is why she was unable to lodge FIR in the time.<\/p>\n

The FIR was lodged against the husband and his brother, sister and brother-in-law.<\/p>\n

Contentions: <\/span>The petitioners contended that the impugned FIR was filed six years after<\/span> the complainant-wife was thrown out of her matrimonial home, therefore, the instant prosecution is barred under the provisions in Section 468<\/a> CrPC<\/a>. The counsels also contended that impugned FIR and the material collected by the investigating agency does not disclose commission of any offence against the petitioners.<\/p>\n

It was further submitted that the complainant has roped in all the relatives of her husband without there being any specific allegations against them.<\/p>\n

Per contra<\/i>, the respondents argued that the impugned FIR and the material collected by the investigating agency clearly discloses commission of cognizable offences against the petitioners. It was also submitted that offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners are continuing in nature; therefore, the bar contained in Section 468<\/a>, CrPC<\/a> is not applicable to the instant case. It was further contended that the bar contained in Section 468 is regarding taking of cognizance and not about undertaking of investigation of an offence.<\/p>\n

Observations and Decision<\/span>: Perusing the facts and contentions, the Court observed that the impugned FIR contains very specific allegations against the husband; however, the allegations against relatives are very general in nature.<\/p>\n