Reading Between the Lines: J&K High Court mandates holistic scrutiny of FIRs to thwart criminalization of civil disputes under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS

Introduction

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh (Jammu Bench), per Rajesh Sekhri, J., in Nanak Chand and Ors v. UT of J&K & Anr (CRM(M) No. 786/2022, decided on 01.09.2025), has emphatically reaffirmed and refined the contours of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings. The Court quashed FIR No. 0208/2022 registered at Police Station Nowshera under Sections 457, 382, 354, 427, 323, and 506 of the IPC, holding that a pure civil dispute over property and inheritance had been camouflaged to wear a criminal hue.

While the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now mirrored in Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is exceptional and to be exercised sparingly, the Court clarified that when the facts disclose an ulterior motive and allegations appear inherently improbable, the High Court is duty-bound to “read between the lines” and consider the overall attending circumstances—not merely the text of the FIR—before allowing the criminal law to run its course.

Background and Key Issues

The case arises from an acrimonious family dispute involving an 85-year-old father (petitioner No. 1), his sons (petitioners No. 2 and 3), and his daughter-in-law (private respondent/complainant). The matrix features a sequence of instruments and proceedings relating to family property and inheritance:

31.08.2018: A power of attorney was executed by the father in favour of his eldest son (the complainant’s husband). The petitioners allege a will deed was also got executed the same day by misrepresentation.
06.09.2018: The father cancelled the power of attorney and the will, and executed a disinheritance deed against his eldest son.
18.09.2018: The private respondent initiated proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, which were later compromised in Lok Adalat on 11.09.2021.
2022: Cross-FIR and civil proceedings ensued: an FIR (No. 12/2022) against the private respondent and her kin, and on 02.03.2022 a civil suit by the eldest son to annul the disinheritance deed.
03.09.2022: The father and his wife moved the Tehsil Legal Services Authority; notices issued the same day to the private respondent and her family.
06.09.2022: The impugned FIR was lodged, alleging break-in, assault, outraging of modesty, theft of cash and gold, and threats.

Key issues before the Court included:

Whether the FIR was an abuse of process—an attempt to weaponize criminal law in a family property dispute—and hence liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS.
Whether the allegations, when tested against the attending circumstances and preliminary investigation, were so absurd or inherently improbable that no prudent person would consider proceeding.
How the Supreme Court’s guidelines in State Of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and the more recent exposition in Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of UP calibrate the High Court’s duty to look beyond a well-drafted complaint.

Summary of the Judgment

Allowing the petition, the Court quashed the FIR. It held that:

The dispute is fundamentally civil, arising from inheritance and property issues, and had been given a criminal texture as a pressure tactic.
The allegations in the FIR—particularly that an 85-year-old father-in-law with his sons assaulted the daughter-in-law, tore her clothes, outraged her modesty, and stole cash and gold—were “absurd and inherently improbable.”
Investigative material did not corroborate key assertions: witnesses examined did not support the theft or outraging of modesty allegations.
The case squarely fit within Bhajan Lal categories (e) and (g): inherent improbability and mala fide institution to wreak vengeance.
While ordinarily the High Court should be slow to interdict investigation, the facts here warranted exercise of inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Detailed Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1) State Of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335

The Court reproduced the celebrated illustrative categories from Bhajan Lal that guide quashment under Section 482 CrPC, emphasizing two that were dispositive here:

Category (e): Where allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person could conclude there are sufficient grounds to proceed.
Category (g): Where proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides, instituted with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance.

By mapping the facts—timing of the FIR vis-à-vis prior civil litigation, disinheritance, notices issued by the Legal Services Authority, and the uncorroborated nature of critical accusations—onto categories (e) and (g), the Court found a textbook case for quashing.

2) Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of UP, 2023 SCC Online SC 947

Relying on Salib, the Court endorsed a refined standard of scrutiny at the threshold:

“[O]nce the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive… he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted… Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone… In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances… and, if need be… read in between the lines.”

This principle was pivotal. Even if an FIR, read in isolation, appears to facially disclose the ingredients of offences, the High Court must examine the broader matrix—the chronology of civil disputes, related litigations, and materials collected during investigation—especially where multiple proceedings and timing patterns suggest a retaliatory motive.

3) State Of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699

Muniswamy was cited to reiterate the foundational rationale for Section 482 intervention: criminal process must not degenerate into a tool of harassment or persecution. The Court invoked this principle to ensure that prosecution is not used as leverage in private family disputes, particularly where civil remedies are already engaged.

Legal Reasoning

Justice Sekhri’s reasoning proceeds in carefully calibrated steps:

Inherent powers are exceptional but preserved. The Court acknowledged the breadth yet restraint of Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS), cautioning against pre-trial fact-finding or stifling legitimate investigation. This sets a high threshold for interference.
Identify the real nature of the dispute. The Court meticulously catalogued the civil property background—power of attorney, will, their cancellations, disinheritance, the DV complaint compromise, the civil suit to annul disinheritance, and the Legal Services Authority notice issued two days before the FIR. This chronology strongly suggested an underlying inheritance dispute rather than a free-standing criminal episode.
Holistic scrutiny and “reading between the lines.” In line with Salib, the Court did not restrict itself to the FIR’s text. It looked at the timing, attendant circumstances, and the available investigative material. This is crucial in cases where allegations may be “deftly drafted” to mimic statutory ingredients while masking a different objective.
Assess inherent improbability and lack of corroboration. The Court found the allegations—of an 85-year-old father-in-law, with his sons, allegedly beating the complainant, tearing clothes, outraging modesty, and committing theft—“absurd and inherently improbable,” particularly in the family context and given the ongoing disputes. Significantly, other witnesses examined under Section 161 CrPC did not support the key allegations of theft or outraging modesty.
Apply Bhajan Lal categories (e) and (g). The case met the tests of (i) inherent improbability and (ii) mala fide institution for vengeance in light of the disinheritance and civil litigation landscape. The Court emphasized that criminal law cannot be a bargaining chip in civil family disputes.
Guard against abuse while preserving legitimate prosecutions. The judgment reiterates the balance: while High Courts should not short-circuit genuine investigations, they must interdict proceedings that are clearly opportunistic, retaliatory, or designed to coerce concessions in civil disputes.

Impact and Prospective Significance

This decision is significant in several interlinked respects:

Doctrinal consolidation under BNSS: By expressly noting that Section 482 CrPC is now mirrored in Section 528 BNSS, the Court affirms continuity of inherent powers post-BNSS and signals that Bhajan Lal and Salib principles remain fully applicable under the new code.
Elevated standard of FIR scrutiny in civil–criminal overlap: The judgment sharpens the duty of High Courts to undertake a holistic, context-sensitive assessment at the threshold when the complaint appears to be a tool for private vengeance. This will influence quashment jurisprudence across cases involving property and inheritance feuds, partnership fallouts, and domestic/family disputes where criminal allegations are added as leverage.
Substance over form in criminal pleading: The Court’s explicit caution against “clever drafting” that creates an “illusion” of criminal ingredients underscores that courts will prioritize the substance and context of accusations, not merely their formal articulation.
Investigative diligence and prosecutorial prudence: While registration of an FIR for cognizable offences is mandatory, the decision nudges investigating agencies and prosecutors to appraise corroboration, context, and plausibility before pressing charges, especially where allegations coincide with contemporaneous civil disputes and counter-allegations.
Balanced protection against misuse: The ruling is not a charter for impunity in genuine cases of domestic violence or sexual offences. Rather, it guides courts to sift genuine from mala fide complaints—protecting both the integrity of the criminal process and the rights of bona fide complainants.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS (Inherent Powers): A narrow, extraordinary jurisdiction allowing High Courts to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process or to secure justice. It is not a substitute for trial, and is exercised sparingly in clear cases.
Bhajan Lal Categories: Seven illustrative situations in which quashing may be justified. Two central here:
- (e) Allegations are absurd/inherently improbable.
- (g) Proceedings are maliciously instituted to wreak vengeance.
“Reading between the lines” (Salib): In suspected mala fide cases, courts must consider the broader context—timelines, related civil disputes, multiple FIRs, and initial investigative materials—beyond the four corners of the FIR.
Malice in fact and malice in law: “Malice in fact” refers to actual ill-will or spite; “malice in law” refers to wrongful acts done without just cause, even absent personal animus. Both can vitiate criminal proceedings instituted for collateral purposes.
Cognizable Offence: An offence for which police can register an FIR and investigate without prior Magistrate approval (e.g., Sections 354, 382 IPC). Quashing does not question cognizability per se, but the bona fides and plausibility of the specific case.
Section 161 CrPC Statements: Statements to police during investigation. Not substantive evidence at trial but relevant at the quash stage to assess whether key allegations find even preliminary corroboration.
Civil–Criminal Divide: Some disputes belong to civil remedies (e.g., title, inheritance, contracts). “Criminalizing” such disputes via allegations of theft, trespass, or assault to gain leverage is impermissible.

Application of the Law to the Facts

Against the civil litigation backdrop (POA/will cancellations, disinheritance, DV compromise, civil suit) and the proximate issuance of a Legal Services Authority notice (03.09.2022), the FIR lodged on 06.09.2022 raised a strong inference of retaliation. The Court noted:

Inherent improbability: The narrative of an 85-year-old father-in-law and his sons committing house-breaking, physical assault, outraging modesty, and theft in broad daylight, in the midst of a property feud, struck the Court as implausible in the circumstances.
Lack of corroboration: Witnesses examined did not support the theft or outraging of modesty allegations—two of the gravest components of the FIR.
Pattern and timing: Multiple proceedings between the parties, and the close sequence between the 03.09.2022 notice and the 06.09.2022 FIR, reinforced the inference of mala fide.
Result: The case fell within Bhajan Lal categories (e) and (g), warranting quashment to prevent abuse of process.

Practice Pointers

For defence counsel: When seeking quashment, assemble a precise chronology of civil disputes, related proceedings, and any contemporaneous notices; highlight gaps in corroboration and inherent improbabilities; cite Salib to urge a holistic scrutiny beyond the FIR.
For prosecutors/investigators: Ensure early corroboration of critical allegations—particularly theft and sexual assault components—before crystallizing the prosecution theory in civil–criminal overlap cases.
For complainants: If the dispute has a civil dimension, seek appropriate civil remedies in parallel. Avoid overbroad or embellished criminal allegations; they risk quashment and may undermine genuine grievances.
For trial courts: Be attentive to the High Court’s emphasis on substance over form when assessing discharge, framing of charge, and bail where evident civil disputes underlie criminal complaints.

Conclusion

Nanak Chand and Ors v. UT of J&K & Anr strengthens the jurisprudential guardrails against the misuse of criminal law in private civil disputes. Building on Bhajan Lal and the Supreme Court’s recent restatement in Salib, the High Court has reiterated the judiciary’s duty to look beyond artful pleadings, to the larger context and early investigative materials, and to interdict proceedings that are inherently improbable or actuated by malice.

The judgment sets a clear message: while the High Court’s inherent powers are exceptional and must not be invoked to prematurely short-circuit legitimate cases, they remain a critical safety valve. Where allegations are contrived to exert pressure in inheritance or property feuds, and are unsupported by preliminary corroboration, the criminal process cannot be permitted to become an instrument of harassment. This decision will serve as an important precedent for future quashment petitions under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS, reinforcing the principle that in criminal law, substance—not form—must prevail.