Distant relatives cannot face matrimonial-cruelty prosecution on vague, omnibus allegations alone.

Respondent No. 2 alleged that, after her 2016 marriage to petitioner No. 1, he and his family subjected her to physical and mental harassment, demanded dowry and gold, and failed to care for her and their child.

She lodged a complaint in April 2022; after investigation, police filed a charge sheet against petitioner No. 1 and his uncle, petitioner No. 2, under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The parties later obtained a divorce by mutual consent, but the complaint was not withdrawn.

The petitioners sought quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC (also referred to in the petition as Section 528 BNSS).

Petitioner No. 2 contended that he lived separately and was implicated only through general allegations.

1. Whether the proceedings against petitioner No. 1 should be quashed in light of the parties’ subsequent divorce by mutual consent.

2. Whether the proceedings against petitioner No. 2 should be quashed where he was a separately residing uncle and the allegations against him were general and lacked specific particulars.

Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice; the petition also invoked Section 528 BNSS.

The alleged offences were under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

A subsequent divorce, by itself, does not require quashing where the complaint and witness statements disclose allegations requiring trial.

In K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, 2024 INSC 960, the Supreme Court cautioned against prosecuting distant relatives in matrimonial cases on omnibus allegations without specific instances of involvement.

The Court also relied on Dara Lakshmi Narayan v. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735, for the principle that generalized accusations unsupported by concrete, particularized allegations should not sustain prosecution of family members, and that courts must guard against misuse of criminal process.

The complaint alleged that petitioner No. 1 began physically and mentally harassing respondent No. 2 after the first year of marriage and demanded additional dowry and gold; the Court found these allegations were supported by statements of material witnesses, making their truth matters for trial.

The subsequent divorce did not negate that material or justify quashing the case against petitioner No. 1.

By contrast, petitioner No. 2 was the uncle of petitioner No. 1, lived separately, and was implicated only through bald and omnibus allegations, with no specific details of the date, time, or manner of alleged harassment.

Applying the Supreme Court principles on distant relatives and generalized allegations, the Court held that continuing the prosecution against him would constitute an abuse of process.

The proceedings against petitioner No. 2 under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were quashed; the petition was dismissed as to petitioner No. 1, and the trial was directed to continue against him.

The Trial Court was directed to dispose of the case within one year, and the High Court’s observations were not to affect the trial court’s decision.