Disputed residence and travel evidence cannot defeat a prima facie matrimonial-cruelty prosecution at the quashing stage.

Respondent No. 2 alleged that, after her marriage to Abhishek Kulshreshtha on 9 November 2019, her husband and his family members—including the petitioners, her sister-in-law and brother-in-law—demanded a gold necklace and a Swift car and subjected her to physical and mental harassment when the demands were not met.

Following her complaint, Crime No. 56/2022 was registered at Mahila Thana, Padav, Gwalior, for offences under Sections 498-A, 294, 506 and 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; a charge-sheet was filed. The petitioners sought quashing under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS, relying on the general nature of the allegations and documents concerning their separate residence and travel. The State and complainant opposed the petition

Whether the allegations and material on record warranted quashing the charge-sheet and consequential proceedings against the petitioners under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction

Whether the petitioners’ claims of separate residence, absence from the alleged locations, and lack of specific incident-wise particulars justified quashing at the threshold

Section 482 CrPC, corresponding to Section 528 BNSS, empowers the High Court to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, but the power is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly. At the quashing stage, the Court considers whether the allegations, taken at face value and as a whole, disclose the alleged offences; it should not conduct a mini-trial or determine disputed questions of fact

Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar cautions against prosecuting relatives on general and omnibus allegations that do not disclose specific involvement, while requiring application of that principle to the facts of each case

Md. Allauddin Khan v. State of Bihar and CBI v. Aryan Singh support the rule that inherent jurisdiction is not a forum for premature resolution of disputed facts or detailed appreciation of evidence

The offences alleged were under Sections 498-A, 294, 506 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

The Court found that the complainant had named both petitioners and attributed to them participation in the alleged dowry demand and resulting harassment. Read as a whole, the allegations were not wholly devoid of factual foundation, and the absence of a separate date for each alleged act did not, by itself, make the prosecution unsustainable

The petitioners’ residence and travel documents were relevant but did not conclusively establish that they could not have participated in the alleged events; assessing their evidentiary value and the petitioners’ respective roles would require factual examination at trial

The Court applied Kahkashan Kausar but distinguished its caution against omnibus allegations, concluding that it did not compel quashing where the complainant had attributed participation to the petitioners. Consistent with the prohibition on a mini-trial, the Court declined to determine the truth of the competing accounts at this stage

The petitioners remained at liberty to raise all permissible grounds and defences before the trial court, which was directed to decide the matter independently and without being influenced by the High Court’s observations