Distant relatives cannot face Section 498A prosecution on vague, omnibus allegations alone.

The complainant alleged that her husband, accused No. 1, subjected her to physical and mental harassment, including assault and restricting her access to her salary.

She also alleged that accused No. 2, a relative living in Hyderabad, visited the couple’s home and urged accused No. 1 to divorce her.

Police filed a charge sheet against both accused under Sections 498A read with 34 of the IPC, and the Magistrate took cognizance.

Accused No. 1 sought quashing of the proceedings, while accused No. 2 separately challenged the cognizance order and sought quashing of the proceedings against him.

1. Whether the allegations and materials against accused No. 1 disclosed a basis to quash the Section 498A IPC proceedings at the pre-trial stage

2. Whether the general allegations that accused No. 2 urged accused No. 1 to divorce the complainant were sufficient to continue the Section 498A IPC proceedings against him

Section 498A IPC criminalises specified forms of cruelty by a husband or his relatives; the proceedings here were brought under that provision read with Section 34 IPC.

In exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, the Court may quash proceedings where, even taking the allegations at face value, they do not make out a prima facie case or continuation would amount to abuse of process.

Relying on K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, 2024 INSC 960, and Dara Lakshmi Narayan v. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735, the Court stated that distant relatives should not be prosecuted on omnibus allegations absent specific instances of their involvement.

As to accused No. 1, the complaint described incidents of abuse and assault, and the Court considered those allegations to be supported by witness statements.

Their truth and whether they amounted to cruelty under Section 498A were matters for trial; therefore, quashing was not warranted at that stage.

As to accused No. 2, the allegations were that he visited the home and urged accused No. 1 to divorce the complainant, but the complaint and witness statements identified no specific date, place, manner, or particular act of harassment.

The Court held that these general allegations did not establish a prima facie case and that continuing the prosecution would constitute an abuse of process.

It allowed Crl.P. No. 11704/2024 and quashed the proceedings against accused No. 2 in C.C. No. 18727/2024 for offences under Sections 498A read with 34 IPC.