{"id":381750,"date":"2026-04-21T11:00:14","date_gmt":"2026-04-21T05:30:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=381750"},"modified":"2026-04-21T11:23:59","modified_gmt":"2026-04-21T05:53:59","slug":"girlfriend-not-relative-under-s-498a-rpc-fir-quashed-jk-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/21\/girlfriend-not-relative-under-s-498a-rpc-fir-quashed-jk-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"Husband\u2019s Girlfriend or concubine not a \u201crelative\u201d under S. 498-A RPC; J&K and Ladakh HC quashes FIR"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court:<\/span> While considering petitions seeking quashment of charges under Sections 498-A and 506, Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 (RPC), arising out of a matrimonial dispute, a Single Judge Bench of Shahzad Azeem<\/span>, J., held that the allegations of cruelty, harassment or dowry demand were wholesale and omnibus and the continuation of such proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. The Court further held that a woman alleged to be a girlfriend or concubine does not fall within the definition of “relative” under Section 498-A RPC and cannot be prosecuted thereunder. Accordingly, the Court quashed the FIR, charge-sheet and the order framing charges.<\/p>\n

Read Also:<\/span> Bom HC: Dowry remarks, ignoring affair, advice to tolerate abuse not cruelty<\/a><\/p>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

The marriage between the spouses was solemnised on 21 September 2016 and, within a short period, a matrimonial discord arose. The wife lodged a complaint on 15 November 2017, alleging that she was subjected to mental and physical harassment, cruelty, demand of dowry and criminal intimidation at the hands of her husband and his family members. She further alleged that her husband had developed illicit relations with another woman (girlfriend) and had intentions to solemnise marriage with her. Based on the complaint, an FIR was registered and a charge-sheet was filed, pursuant to which the trial court framed charges under Sections 498-A and 506, Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 (RPC). Aggrieved thereby, the petitions were filed under Section 561-A, Jammu & Kashmir Criminal Procedure Code, 1989 (J&K CrPC) seeking quashment of the entire criminal proceedings.<\/p>\n

The accused person’s counsel submitted that the wife had married by cheating and blackmailing the husband and had obtained his signs on a blank paper and later demanded Rs 20 lakhs, for which a petition was already filed under Section 12(1)(c<\/span>), Jammu and Kashmir Hindu Marriage Act, 1980 (J&K HMA) seeking annulment of marriage. It was also stated that the husband had also filed a complaint under Sections 420\/506 RPC against the wife on 8 December 2016. Thus, it was contended that the criminal proceedings by the wife were nothing but a counterblast to the prior proceedings initiated by the husband. They also alleged that the police neither conducted any preliminary enquiry nor verified the veracity of the allegations. They argued that the allegations against them were general, vague and omnibus in nature, made only to wreck the vengeance. Further, the girlfriend’s counsel vehemently argued that she was neither a relative of the husband nor was she residing with the parties, therefore, she could not be charged under Sections 498-A and 506 RPC.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, the State, while filing replies, merely narrated the sequence of events without demonstrating how the ingredients of Sections 498-A and 506 RPC are satisfied. The wife denied the averments made in the petition, submitted that the husband had developed illicit relations which led to the FIR but later entered into a compromise, and admitted the pendency of the petition under Section 12(1)(c<\/span>) J&K HMA.<\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> Section 498-A IPC: A Double-Edged Sword — Protecting Dignity or Enabling Misuse? Supreme Court Rulings explored<\/a><\/p>\n

Analysis<\/h3>\n

The Court opined that the wife’s complaint dated 15 November 2017 was germane to all the subsequent criminal proceedings against the accused persons. The Court observed that the material on record, including statements recorded under Section 161 J&K CrPC, revealed that the allegations were wholesale and omnibus in nature. The Court noted that no specific incident of cruelty, harassment or dowry demand had been stated with particulars or date, time, place or manner of occurrence. The Court emphasised that it is well settled that the husband’s entire family cannot be roped in based on vague and general allegations of cruelty and demand of dowry and that such tendency deserves to be discouraged.<\/p>\n

The Court relied on Dara Lakshmi Narayana<\/span> v. State of Telangana<\/span>, (2025) 3 SCC 735<\/a>, wherein it was observed that there is a growing tendency to misuse Section 498-A<\/a> IPC<\/a> (pari materia<\/span> with Section 498-A RPC) as a tool for personal vendetta and that with vague and generalised allegations should not be allowed to sustain criminal proceedings.<\/p>\n

The Court noted that the husband’s girlfriend was neither related to him by blood, marriage or adoption, nor was she residing in the matrimonial home or subjected the wife to harassment or intimidation. The Court relied on U. Suvetha<\/span> v. State<\/span>, (2009) 6 SCC 757<\/a>, wherein it was held that<\/p>\n

“By no stretch of imagination, a girlfriend or even a concubine in an etymological sense would be a ‘relative’. The world ‘relative’ brings within its purview a status. Such a status must be conferred either by blood or marriage or adoption. If no marriage has taken place, the question of one being relative of another would not arise.”<\/p>\n

The Court referred to State of Haryana<\/span> v. Bhajan Lal<\/span>, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335<\/a>, wherein it was held that inherent powers may be exercised where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused or where criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides and instituted with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.<\/p>\n

Read Also:<\/span> Husband’s girlfriend not a ‘relative’ for prosecution under S. 498A IPC’; Gujarat HC quashes cruelty case<\/a><\/p>\n

Decision<\/h3>\n

The Court observed that the criminal proceedings were manifestly attended with mala fide and came to be instituted with an ulterior motive to wreck vengeance and that their continuation would amount to abuse of the process of law and defeat the ends of justice. Accordingly, while allowing the petitions, the Court quashed the FIR, charge-sheet and the order framing charges under Sections 498-A and 506 RPC.<\/p>\n

[Mela Ram<\/span> v. State (UT of J&K)<\/span>, CRM(M) No. 261 of 2019, decided on 16-4-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

For the Petitioners:<\/span> A.K Sharma, Ajay Kumar, Advocates.<\/p>\n

For the Respondents:<\/span> Sumeet Bhatia, GA, Ashish Sharma, Advocate.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“The husband’s girlfriend was neither related to him by blood, marriage or adoption, nor was she residing in the matrimonial home or subjected the wife to harassment or intimidation. The continuation of the criminal proceedings in the case would amount to abuse of the process of law and defeat the ends of justice.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67538,"featured_media":381757,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[22274,35746,2570,31563,55664,84940,50352,34357,102731],"class_list":["post-381750","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-abuse-of-process-of-law","tag-concubine","tag-Cruelty","tag-illicit-relationship","tag-jammu-kashmir-and-ladakh-high-court","tag-justice-shahzad-azeem","tag-quashment-of-fir","tag-relative","tag-section-498-a-rpc"],"yoast_head":"\nGirlfriend not 'relative' under S. 498-A RPC: J&K HC | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observes that concubine or girlfriend is not 'relative' under S. 498-A RPC in allegations of cruelty and quashes FIR calling allegations wholesale and omnibus.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/21\/girlfriend-not-relative-under-s-498a-rpc-fir-quashed-jk-hc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Husband\u2019s Girlfriend or concubine not a \u201crelative\u201d under S. 498-A RPC; J&K and Ladakh HC quashes FIR\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observes that concubine or girlfriend is not 'relative' under S. 498-A RPC in allegations of cruelty and quashes FIR calling allegations wholesale and omnibus.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/21\/girlfriend-not-relative-under-s-498a-rpc-fir-quashed-jk-hc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-04-21T05:30:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-04-21T05:53:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Girlfriend-not-relative-under-S.-498-A.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Sunaina\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Husband\u2019s Girlfriend or concubine not a \u201crelative\u201d under S. 498-A RPC; J&K and Ladakh HC quashes FIR\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sunaina\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/21\/girlfriend-not-relative-under-s-498a-rpc-fir-quashed-jk-hc\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/21\/girlfriend-not-relative-under-s-498a-rpc-fir-quashed-jk-hc\/\",\"name\":\"Girlfriend not 'relative' under S. 498-A RPC: J&K HC | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/21\/girlfriend-not-relative-under-s-498a-rpc-fir-quashed-jk-hc\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/21\/girlfriend-not-relative-under-s-498a-rpc-fir-quashed-jk-hc\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Girlfriend-not-relative-under-S.-498-A.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-21T05:30:14+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-04-21T05:53:59+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/34835827e9e9e8def4f8c83ccef5727f\"},\"description\":\"Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observes that concubine or girlfriend is not 'relative' under S. 498-A RPC in allegations of cruelty and quashes FIR calling allegations wholesale and omnibus.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/21\/girlfriend-not-relative-under-s-498a-rpc-fir-quashed-jk-hc\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/21\/girlfriend-not-relative-under-s-498a-rpc-fir-quashed-jk-hc\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/21\/girlfriend-not-relative-under-s-498a-rpc-fir-quashed-jk-hc\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Girlfriend-not-relative-under-S.-498-A.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Girlfriend-not-relative-under-S.-498-A.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Girlfriend not relative under S. 498-A\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/21\/girlfriend-not-relative-under-s-498a-rpc-fir-quashed-jk-hc\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Husband\u2019s Girlfriend or concubine not a \u201crelative\u201d under S. 498-A RPC; J&K and Ladakh HC quashes FIR\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/34835827e9e9e8def4f8c83ccef5727f\",\"name\":\"Sunaina\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3a354bf6ec74d2631ada87f05d4d0974c39ba4fa4100c0cd4972b767e8824247?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3a354bf6ec74d2631ada87f05d4d0974c39ba4fa4100c0cd4972b767e8824247?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sunaina\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/sunaina\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Girlfriend not 'relative' under S. 498-A RPC: J&K HC | SCC Times","description":"Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observes that concubine or girlfriend is not 'relative' under S. 498-A RPC in allegations of cruelty and quashes FIR calling allegations wholesale and omnibus.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/21\/girlfriend-not-relative-under-s-498a-rpc-fir-quashed-jk-hc\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Husband\u2019s Girlfriend or concubine not a \u201crelative\u201d under S. 498-A RPC; J&K and Ladakh HC quashes FIR","og_description":"Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observes that concubine or girlfriend is not 'relative' under S. 498-A RPC in allegations of cruelty and quashes FIR calling allegations wholesale and omnibus.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/21\/girlfriend-not-relative-under-s-498a-rpc-fir-quashed-jk-hc\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-04-21T05:30:14+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-04-21T05:53:59+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Girlfriend-not-relative-under-S.-498-A.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Sunaina","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Husband\u2019s Girlfriend or concubine not a \u201crelative\u201d under S. 498-A RPC; J&K and Ladakh HC quashes FIR","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sunaina","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/21\/girlfriend-not-relative-under-s-498a-rpc-fir-quashed-jk-hc\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/21\/girlfriend-not-relative-under-s-498a-rpc-fir-quashed-jk-hc\/","name":"Girlfriend not 'relative' under S. 498-A RPC: J&K HC | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/21\/girlfriend-not-relative-under-s-498a-rpc-fir-quashed-jk-hc\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/21\/girlfriend-not-relative-under-s-498a-rpc-fir-quashed-jk-hc\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Girlfriend-not-relative-under-S.-498-A.webp","datePublished":"2026-04-21T05:30:14+00:00","dateModified":"2026-04-21T05:53:59+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/34835827e9e9e8def4f8c83ccef5727f"},"description":"Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court observes that concubine or girlfriend is not 'relative' under S. 498-A RPC in allegations of cruelty and quashes FIR calling allegations wholesale and omnibus.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/21\/girlfriend-not-relative-under-s-498a-rpc-fir-quashed-jk-hc\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/21\/girlfriend-not-relative-under-s-498a-rpc-fir-quashed-jk-hc\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/21\/girlfriend-not-relative-under-s-498a-rpc-fir-quashed-jk-hc\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Girlfriend-not-relative-under-S.-498-A.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Girlfriend-not-relative-under-S.-498-A.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Girlfriend not relative under S. 498-A"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/21\/girlfriend-not-relative-under-s-498a-rpc-fir-quashed-jk-hc\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Husband\u2019s Girlfriend or concubine not a \u201crelative\u201d under S. 498-A RPC; J&K and Ladakh HC quashes FIR"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/34835827e9e9e8def4f8c83ccef5727f","name":"Sunaina","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3a354bf6ec74d2631ada87f05d4d0974c39ba4fa4100c0cd4972b767e8824247?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3a354bf6ec74d2631ada87f05d4d0974c39ba4fa4100c0cd4972b767e8824247?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sunaina"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/sunaina\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Girlfriend-not-relative-under-S.-498-A.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":251549,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/07\/20\/cruelty-5\/","url_meta":{"origin":381750,"position":0},"title":"AP HC | Is girlfriend or concubine a “relative” of husband, liable to be prosecuted for cruelty under S. 498-A IPC? Court decides","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"July 20, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J., addresses whether a girlfriend or concubine who is not connected by blood or marriage can be prosecuted under Section 498-A of Penal Code, 1860. In the instant matter, it was stated that a case under Sections 498-A, 114 Penal Code, 1860\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":275215,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/07\/jammu-and-kashmir-and-ladakh-hc-matrimonial-disputes-settlement-between-parties-high-court-inherent-power-quashing-criminal-proceedings-compromise-reached-chance-of-conviction-bleak-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":381750,"position":1},"title":"J&K and Ladakh HC | To prevent the “frittering away of the fruits of compromise” HC can quash proceedings for non-compoundable offences if parties have arrived at a settlement","author":"Editor","date":"October 7, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: While deciding the instant petition wherein the Court was faced with the issue that whether it has the power to quash the proceedings, particularly when some of the offences alleged to have been committed by petitioner and others are non-compoundable in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/JK-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/JK-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/JK-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/JK-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/JK-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":260146,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/01\/15\/dowry-prohibition-act-vis-a-vis-jk-dowry-restraint-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":381750,"position":2},"title":"J&K HC | Dowry Prohibition Act vis-a-vis J&K Dowry Restraint Act; HC blurs the line between the two","author":"Editor","date":"January 15, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Jammu and Kashmir High Court: In a case alleging dowry death, Rajnesh Oswal, J., clarified the scope and applicability of Jammu and Kashmir Dowry Restraint Act 1960. Observing that the Trial Court had conducted mini trial at the stage of framing of charge, the Bench expressed, \u00a0\u201cThe trial court was\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":254597,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/23\/will-a-rumourous-tweet-make-one-legally-liable\/","url_meta":{"origin":381750,"position":3},"title":"J&K and Ladakh HC | Will a rumourous tweet make one legally liable even when one deletes it on coming to know it to be untrue? HC decides","author":"Editor","date":"September 23, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: Rajnesh Oswal, J., quashed the FIR against activist Sushil Pandit with regard to one of his tweets, stating it to be an abuse of process of law. The Bench stated, \u201cAt the most from the tweet in question, it can be inferred that\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":273287,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/09\/08\/jammu-kashmir-ladakh-high-court-separatism-college-profeesor-youtube-videos-fir-quashment-section-482-crpc-legal-research-updates-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":381750,"position":4},"title":"J&K and Ladakh HC refuses to quash FIR against College Professor allegedly promoting separatism through YouTube videos","author":"Editor","date":"September 8, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: Sanjay Dhar, J. dismissed a petition which was filed challenging FIR registered under Sections 153, 353 Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 and 13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (ULA(P) Act). Petitioner was working as Assistant Professor, Geography, at Government Degree College and it\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/JK-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/JK-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/JK-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/JK-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/JK-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":277847,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/22\/jk-and-ladakh-hc-refuses-to-quash-firs-against-the-media-outlet-kashmiryat-and-kashmir-walla-for-publishing-an-article-alleging-use-of-force-by-the-army-for-celebrating-republic-day-at-a-school\/","url_meta":{"origin":381750,"position":5},"title":"J&K and Ladakh HC refuses to quash FIRs against the media outlet Kashmiryat and Kashmir Walla for publishing an article alleging use of force by the Army for celebrating Republic Day at a school","author":"Editor","date":"November 22, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe High Court, while forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/JK-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/JK-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/JK-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/JK-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/JK-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/381750","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67538"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=381750"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/381750\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":381754,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/381750\/revisions\/381754"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/381757"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=381750"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=381750"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=381750"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}