Distant relatives cannot face matrimonial-cruelty prosecution on vague allegations lacking specific instances of involvement.

Respondent No. 2 alleged that, after her marriage to accused No. 1, she was harassed for additional dowry by her husband and in-laws, including the petitioners, who were relatives of her husband.

Police filed a charge sheet against eight accused, and the Magistrate took cognizance of offences under Sections 498A, 506, 323 and 114 read with Section 149 of the IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The petitioners, arrayed as accused Nos. 4 to 8, sought to quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., contending that they lived separately and that the allegations against them were general and unsupported by specific instances.

Respondent No. 2 did not appear; the State opposed the petition, relying on the charge-sheet materials.

Whether the complaint and charge-sheet disclosed specific allegations sufficient to proceed against the petitioners, who were relatives living separately from the complainant’s matrimonial household.

Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners amounted to abuse of process warranting quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Section 482 Cr.P.C. empowers the High Court to quash proceedings where their continuation would amount to an abuse of the process of court.

The Court applied the principle in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, 2024 INSC 960, that distant relatives should not be prosecuted in matrimonial and dowry-related cases on the basis of omnibus allegations without specific instances of involvement.

It also relied on Dara Lakshmi Narayan v. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735, which cautions against prosecuting family members based only on generalized accusations, particularly where they live separately and no specific allegations establish their active involvement.

Allegations must be scrutinized with care in matrimonial disputes; general assertions of harassment, without particulars, do not by themselves justify criminal prosecution.

The Court noted that the petitioners were relatives of the complainant’s husband and had not resided in the matrimonial home shared by the complainant and accused Nos. 1 to 3.

The complaint alleged that they instigated the principal accused when visiting that home, but neither the complaint nor the charge-sheet statements specified any date, time, place, manner, or particular instance of harassment by the petitioners.

Applying the cited principles, the Court concluded that the allegations were vague and omnibus and did not establish a prima facie case against these petitioners; requiring them to face trial would therefore constitute an abuse of process.

It expressly directed that proceedings against accused Nos. 1 to 3 continue.