SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered over the alleged abduction of a married woman from Baramulla, holding that the complaint did not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting the exercise of its inherent powers. The court ruled that the investigation should proceed, observing that the allegations required a full probe and that the woman’s apprehension regarding her safety could be addressed by recording her statement at a place where she feels secure.
Justice MA Chowdhary delivered the judgment on June 29 after reserving the matter on June 1. The petition had been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), seeking quashing of FIR No. 31/2025 registered at Police Station Panzalla, Baramulla, besides challenging the non-bailable warrants issued against the Delhi resident arrayed as the second petitioner.
According to the petition, the girl, a 23-year-old resident of Rohama in Baramulla, had travelled to Delhi in December 2024 to pursue a computer training course, where she came into contact with the Delhi resident. She alleged that her family opposed their friendship because they belonged to different religions and that after she returned home for Eid in March 2025, she was confined, assaulted and pressured by relatives to marry a man of their choice.
The petition further alleged that she was forcibly married on April 7, 2025, against her will and was later subjected to repeated assaults and sexual violence. It claimed that she escaped from her matrimonial home on May 25 with the assistance of two friends, travelled by air to Delhi and approached the Delhi resident for help. She maintained that she had left voluntarily and had neither been kidnapped nor abducted.
The petitioners argued that the FIR alleging kidnapping was false and had been lodged only to compel the girl to return to Kashmir. They also alleged harassment of the Delhi resident and his family during the investigation and sought protection for the girl in Delhi.
The complainant, who is the father of the woman’s husband, opposed the petition, contending that she was legally married to his son and had been abducted from her matrimonial home with the assistance of two local men acting at the behest of the Delhi resident. He maintained that the investigation had revealed a conspiracy in which the local accused facilitated her movement to Srinagar airport, from where she flew to Delhi.
During the proceedings, the complainant also placed on record a marriage certificate purportedly issued by an Arya Samaj Mandir in Delhi and photographs showing that the girl and the Delhi resident had allegedly solemnised a marriage on May 28, 2025, before the petition was filed.
The police, in its status report, informed the court that during investigation two local accused had been arrested and later released on bail. It stated that the girl had telephonically informed the investigating agency that she had travelled to Delhi of her own free will and wished to record her statement before a magistrate in Delhi. However, the police maintained that the investigation had remained incomplete because proceedings had been stayed by the High Court.
In compliance with an interim direction, the girl’s statement was recorded virtually before the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court. She reiterated that she had not been abducted by anyone, said she was living and working in Delhi of her own choice, expressed unwillingness to return to Kashmir because of perceived threats to her life, and stated that she wanted to divorce her husband.
After considering the pleadings, the status report and the statement of the girl, Justice Chowdhary observed that the material on record indicated she had left her matrimonial home with the assistance of two local persons and reached Delhi, where she appeared to have subsequently married the Delhi resident while her earlier marriage was still subsisting.
The court noted that enticing away a married woman for illicit sexual relations is recognised as an offence under Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), while contracting another marriage during the subsistence of an earlier marriage may attract the offence of bigamy under Section 82 of the BNS.
Referring to a recent judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, the court observed that judicial sanction cannot be extended to an adulterous relationship.
Holding that the complaint lodged by the father-in-law could not be described as an abuse of the legal process, the court declined to quash the FIR. At the same time, it observed that the girl’s apprehensions regarding her safety while joining the investigation could be addressed by directing the investigating agency to examine her at a place where she feels safe, in accordance with law.
With these observations, the High Court dismissed the petition, vacated the interim stay on investigation and disposed of the connected applications.
