High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court

No Evidence Against Parents, Claims Against Son Must be Investigated: Jammu & Kashmir High Court quashes FIR against parents in fraudulent marriage and coerced physical relations case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has quashed the FIR against the parents of Ajay Sharma while maintaining that the investigation against him must proceed. The case involves allegations of deceitful marriage and coerced physical relations under false pretenses, highlighting the nuanced approach of the court in differentiating the roles of various accused individuals.

The case originates from an FIR filed by Miss X, alleging that Ajay Sharma entered into a fraudulent marriage with her and subsequently coerced her into physical relations. Miss X contended that Sharma deceived her by converting to Islam and marrying her under false pretenses, only to later deny the marriage and sever ties. The FIR also implicated Sharma’s parents, accusing them of being complicit in the deceit. The petitioners sought to quash the FIR, claiming the accusations were baseless and motivated by personal vendetta.

The court meticulously examined the allegations against Ajay Sharma and his parents. Justice Rajnesh Oswal found no prima facie case against the parents (petitioners Nos. 1 & 2) but determined that the investigation against Ajay Sharma should continue to validate the claims made by Miss X.

Justice Oswal noted, “The parents cannot be held vicariously responsible for the acts of their son, especially when there are no allegations against them regarding the commission of any offense.” The court concluded that implicating Sharma’s parents appeared to be a tactic to pressure Ajay Sharma, noting the absence of evidence against them in the alleged crimes.

The court referenced significant precedents, including the State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, to clarify when criminal proceedings can be quashed. Justice Oswal emphasized that allegations must be closely scrutinized, especially if they seem driven by personal vendetta.

Justice Oswal reiterated: “Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offense or make out a case against the accused, the FIR can be quashed.”

The allegations against Ajay Sharma included deceitful marriage and coerced physical relations. Miss X claimed that Sharma converted to Islam and married her under false pretenses, only to later deny the marriage. Justice Oswal stressed that these allegations warranted a thorough investigation to determine their validity.

Justice Oswal remarked, “The factual dispute regarding the authenticity of the Nikahnama and the alleged deceitful conduct of petitioner No. 3 necessitates a thorough investigation. The prima facie allegations against petitioner No. 3 involve serious offenses that cannot be dismissed without proper inquiry.”

The court’s decision to quash the FIR against Ajay Sharma’s parents while allowing the investigation against him to continue underscores the judiciary’s balanced approach in handling cases involving personal vendettas and serious criminal allegations. By distinguishing between the accused based on available evidence, the judgment reinforces the legal principles of fairness and thorough investigation in criminal proceedings. This ruling is expected to influence future cases involving similar allegations, highlighting the importance of a meticulous examination of evidence and safeguarding individuals from unjust accusations while ensuring genuine complaints are thoroughly investigated.

Date of Decision: 30.05.2024

Kusum Sharma & Ors. Vs. The Station House Officer, Domana & Ors.

Similar News