Mere Dragging Without Intent Does Not Amount to Outraging Modesty: J&K High Court Quashes FIR

In a significant ruling that reaffirms the limits of criminal law in the context of personal and civil disputes, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar, on 31st October 2025, quashed an FIR registered under Sections 354 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code against three family members, observing that “a mere act of dragging a woman, without any intent to outrage her modesty, cannot attract the rigour of Section 354 IPC.” The Court also held that co-owners cannot be accused of criminal trespass in a jointly owned property, especially when the issue of possession is disputed and pending in civil proceedings.

Justice Sanjay Dhar held that the FIR, arising from a longstanding family dispute over a shared property, was filed with the intention to “settle a civil dispute by giving it a criminal colour”, thereby amounting to an abuse of the judicial process.

“Criminal Law Cannot Be Weaponised to Settle Civil Scores” – FIR Quashed for Want of Criminal Intent in Family Property Row

On 31 October 2025, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court at Srinagar delivered a critical judgment in Mushtaq Ahmad Shah & Others v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and Others, ruling on the scope of Section 354 and Section 448 IPC in the context of domestic property disputes. The petitioners sought the quashing of FIR No. 84/2021 under Section 482 CrPC, which had accused them of outraging the modesty of a female relative and committing criminal trespass. The Court found that the allegations lacked the essential ingredients of criminal intent, and that the FIR was a misuse of the criminal justice system to coerce a settlement in an ongoing civil suit.

The petitioners and the complainant were close relatives and co-owners of a jointly purchased residential property in Srinagar. A dispute had arisen regarding possession, leading to a civil suit filed by the petitioners, in which the Civil Court had passed a status quo order. Despite this, the complainant filed FIR No. 84/2021, alleging that on 25 August 2021, the petitioners unlawfully entered her portion of the house, assaulted her, and dragged her, during which her headgear fell off, which was alleged to amount to outraging her modesty under Section 354 IPC.

She further claimed that the petitioners broke into another room and assaulted her husband as well. The FIR was registered on the directions of a Magistrate.

The petitioners, in turn, argued that they were being harassed through criminal litigation in a matter that was purely civil in nature, as they were co-owners and had themselves been victims of aggression in the past, supported by a prior FIR and civil court orders.

The High Court examined two core charges in the FIR—Section 354 IPC (outraging modesty of a woman) and Section 448 IPC (criminal trespass)—through the lens of judicial precedents and the factual context of a co-ownership property dispute among family members.

On Section 354 IPC:

Justice Dhar reiterated that intent or knowledge to outrage modesty is a sine qua non for invocation of Section 354 IPC. Citing the landmark judgment in Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, the Court emphasized that:

“Mere assault or use of criminal force to a woman simplicitor, without there being any intention on the part of the accused to outrage the modesty of the victim, would not fall within the definition of the offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC.” [Para 21]

Applying this to the case at hand, the Court held:

“There is nothing either in the statement of the complainant or in the material collected by the Investigating Agency… to remotely suggest that the petitioners intended to outrage modesty of the complainant… Having regard to the close relationship between the parties, it is difficult to conceive that the petitioners intended to outrage modesty of the complainant.” [Para 22]

Thus, even if the headgear of the complainant fell during the altercation, the absence of indecent intent or sexual overtones meant that the act did not amount to outraging her modesty.

On Section 448 IPC:

Turning to the allegation of criminal trespass, the Court clarified that Section 448 IPC presupposes exclusive possession of the complainant and an intent to commit an offence, intimidate or annoy. However, the Court found that:

“A civil suit between the parties is pending before the Civil Court and there is an order of status quo in operation… It also appears that the petitioners are co-owners of the property… Therefore, mere entry of the petitioners into the said property would not amount to trespass.” [Para 24]

Moreover, the Court criticised the Investigating Agency for not probing into the civil status of the property:

“No investigation in this regard has been conducted… nor any material has been collected to show that the site of occurrence was in exclusive possession of the complainant.” [Para 25]

In such circumstances, the basic ingredients of criminal trespass under Section 448 IPC were not made out.

Court’s Reflections on Misuse of Criminal Process

Justice Dhar unequivocally condemned the attempt to cloak a civil property dispute in criminal garb, noting:

“The complainant has tried to settle a civil dispute between her and the petitioners by giving it a criminal colour… The same is nothing but an abuse of process of court which needs to be curbed.” [Para 27]

Relying on the Supreme Court’s observations in Md. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar and other cases, the Court reiterated that criminal law should not be misused to apply pressure in civil conflicts.

“Continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioners, in these circumstances, would amount to abuse of process of law.” [Para 28]

The Court concluded that neither Section 354 IPC nor Section 448 IPC was attracted on the facts and materials on record. It exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash FIR No. 84/2021 and all proceedings emanating therefrom.

“The petition is allowed and the impugned FIR and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.” [Para 29]

This judgment stands as a strong precedent against the criminalisation of familial and civil disputes, especially in matters of joint ownership or possession. By insisting on proof of intent and exclusive possession, the High Court has provided much-needed clarity on the boundaries of criminal liability in property-related altercations.

The case also reflects the judiciary's increasing scrutiny of malicious prosecutions designed to harass or pressure parties in civil disputes—a trend frequently frowned upon by the Supreme Court and now echoed by the Jammu & Kashmir High Court.

Date of Decision: 31 October 2025