A retaliatory matrimonial complaint filed to counter prior litigation may be quashed as an abuse of process.

The complainant alleged that, after her marriage to petitioner no. 1, the petitioners demanded dowry and subjected her to physical and mental cruelty; she also alleged an assault on 10 August 2014.

Before her complaint was filed on 23 August 2014, petitioner no. 2 had filed a criminal case against her and her family, and petitioner no. 1 had instituted a matrimonial case seeking dissolution of the marriage.

The petitioners sought discharge under Section 245 CrPC. The Magistrate rejected that application; by the time the High Court heard the matter, charges had been framed and four witnesses examined.

The petitioners challenged the rejection and sought quashing of the proceedings.

1. Whether the allegations and surrounding circumstances disclosed sufficient grounds to continue the prosecution against the petitioners, or whether the proceedings amounted to an abuse of process.

2. Whether the Magistrate’s rejection of the petitioners’ application for discharge under Section 245 CrPC should be quashed.

Section 245 CrPC was the provision under which the petitioners sought discharge.

The High Court considered the principles invoked from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and the cited decisions concerning vague or omnibus allegations against relatives in matrimonial cases, including Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P., and Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar.

It also considered the petitioners’ reliance on Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Sub-Judicial Magistrate and Nitin Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab.

The governing principle applied was that continuation of criminal proceedings may be quashed where, in the circumstances of the case, it would constitute an abuse of the process of the court.

The Court considered the sequence of the earlier criminal and matrimonial proceedings and the complainant’s subsequent complaint. It also noted that, according to her solemn affirmation, she had initially lived at the matrimonial home for only four to five days, and found that her account of an occurrence on 16 July 2014—when her father allegedly took her to that home—indicated awareness of the matrimonial proceeding filed that same day.

On the facts before it, the Court treated the complaint as a retaliatory counterblast to the proceedings against the complainant and concluded that continuation of the prosecution would be an abuse of process, notwithstanding the State and complainant’s opposition and the progress of the trial.

It allowed the application, quashed the order rejecting discharge and all consequential proceedings in Complaint Case No. 28679(C) of 2014, but only insofar as they concerned the named petitioners.