Criminal proceedings against separately residing in-laws quashed where cruelty allegations are general and omnibus.

The informant alleged that she married Bijendra Choudhary on 1 December 2014 and that, on 14 May 2015, her husband and the three petitioners—Upendra Choudhary, Hema Devi, and Dharmendra Choudhary—demanded ₹2 lakhs and attempted to kill her.

She further alleged that, on 1 June 2015, Dharmendra attempted to kill her, while Hema Devi poured kerosene oil on her and her husband attempted to set her on fire; the incident was allegedly prevented by persons who assembled on hearing the alarm.

The case was registered under Sections 406 and 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The petitioners, described as the informant’s in-laws, claimed that they lived separately and had been implicated through general and omnibus allegations.

Their application under Section 239 CrPC for discharge was rejected by the Magistrate on 7 September 2018 in G.R. No. 2619 of 2015/Trial No. 4345 of 2016, leading to the present petition seeking quashing of that order and the consequential proceedings.

Whether the allegations and materials against the three petitioners, who claimed to be separately residing in-laws, were sufficiently specific to justify their continued prosecution for offences under Sections 406 and 498A/34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Whether the Magistrate erred in rejecting the petitioners’ application for discharge under Section 239 CrPC, warranting interference by the High Court in exercise of its quashing jurisdiction.

The Court considered the offences under Sections 406 and 498A/34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, along with the discharge jurisdiction under Section 239 CrPC and the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process.

Relying principally on Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083, and the authorities discussed therein, including Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, and Neelu Chopra v. Bharti, the Court applied the rule that general and omnibus allegations against relatives in matrimonial prosecutions, without specific particulars of their individual roles, may constitute abuse of process.

The Court also relied on Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P. and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly the categories permitting quashing where the allegations, even if accepted at face value, do not disclose a sufficient case, are inherently improbable, or indicate a malicious or vexatious prosecution.

The Court treated the petitioners as separately residing in-laws who were not shown, through specific and individualized allegations, to have participated in the informant’s day-to-day domestic affairs.

Although the complaint attributed acts of cruelty and dowry-related conduct to the petitioners, the Court characterized the allegations against them as general and omnibus.

Applying the principles in Abhishek and the related Supreme Court authorities, the Court held that permitting the prosecution of such relatives on insufficiently particularized allegations would amount to abuse of the process of law.

On that basis, it found the Magistrate’s rejection of the discharge application unsustainable.

All consequential criminal proceedings arising from Mahila P.S. Case No. 96 of 2015 were quashed insofar as they concerned Upendra Choudhary, Hema Devi, and Dharmendra Choudhary.

The Court directed that a copy of the order be communicated to the trial court forthwith.