Mela Ram & Ors. v. State of J&K & Anr.; Arti Devi v. State of J&K & Anr., 2026
The judgment clarifies the scope of “relative” under Section 498-A, excluding extra-marital partners.
Judgement Details
Court
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Date of Decision
17 April 2026
Judges
Justice Shahzad Azeem
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
The complainant-wife, a policewoman, married the husband (an Army personnel) in 2016.
-
Within seven months of marriage, she filed a complaint alleging:
-
Cruelty and harassment by husband and in-laws
-
Dowry demands
-
Mental and physical abuse
-
Allegation that the husband had an extra-marital relationship with Arti Devi
-
-
Based on the complaint, an FIR was registered at the Women Police Station, Udhampur under Sections 498-A and 506 RPC.
-
A chargesheet was filed and the trial court proceeded to frame charges.
-
The accused persons included:
-
Husband
-
Parents-in-law
-
Brother, sister, sister-in-law
-
Arti Devi (alleged paramour)
-
-
The petitioners filed petitions under Section 561-A CrPC seeking quashing of FIR, chargesheet, and charges.
-
They argued that:
-
The husband had already initiated annulment proceedings and filed a criminal complaint before the wife’s FIR.
-
The FIR was a counter-blast motivated by revenge.
-
-
The allegations against family members were general, vague, and lacking specific details.
Issues
-
Whether a woman alleged to be in an extra-marital relationship with the husband qualifies as a “relative” under Section 498-A RPC?
-
Whether vague and omnibus allegations without specific particulars are sufficient to sustain prosecution under Section 498-A RPC?
-
Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed when they appear to be mala fide or a counter-blast to earlier legal action?
-
Whether continuation of such proceedings amounts to abuse of the process of law?
Judgement
-
The Court relied on U. Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police and reiterated that a girlfriend or concubine is not a “relative” under Section 498-A.
-
It held that Arti Devi, being neither related by blood, marriage, nor adoption, cannot be prosecuted under Section 498-A RPC.
-
The Court found that allegations against other family members were “wholesale and omnibus”, lacking:
-
Specific dates
-
Particular incidents
-
Clear roles of each accused
-
-
It relied on Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana to emphasize that general allegations are insufficient.
-
The Court observed a growing misuse of Section 498-A as a tool for personal vendetta.
-
It noted that the husband’s legal actions preceded the FIR, indicating the complaint was likely a counter-blast.
-
Reliance was placed on:
-
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
-
Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana
-
-
The Court held that continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.
Held
-
The FIR, chargesheet, and order framing charges were quashed.
-
Proceedings against all petitioners, including Arti Devi, were set aside.
-
The Court held that prosecution in such circumstances is unsustainable in law.
Analysis
-
The judgment clarifies the scope of “relative” under Section 498-A, excluding extra-marital partners.
-
It strengthens safeguards against misuse of criminal law in matrimonial disputes.
-
Reinforces the requirement of specific and credible allegations in criminal complaints.
-
Upholds the High Court’s power to quash proceedings under inherent jurisdiction to prevent injustice.
-
Aligns with established Supreme Court jurisprudence on abuse of process and mala fide litigation.
-
However, it may raise concerns about limited remedies against third parties involved in marital breakdowns.