F.I.R. Quashed Against Relatives Where Only General and Omnibus Allegations Exist in Matrimonial Disputes.

The informant, Nisha Kumari, lodged an F.I.R. (Bhojpur Sadar Mahila P.S. Case No. 76 of 2021) alleging that following her marriage to Prakash Kumar Singh (Petitioner No. 5) on 13.02.2019, she was subjected to dowry demands (specifically a four-wheeler) and physical/mental cruelty.

She further alleged she was forcibly administered medicine leading to a miscarriage.

Charges were filed under Sections 341, 323, 313, 379, 498A, and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Petitioners No. 1 and 2 (parents-in-law) withdrew their application earlier.

Petitioners No. 3 and 4 (relatives) and Petitioner No. 5 (husband) sought quashing of the F.I.R.

1. Whether the F.I.R. against Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 (the husband’s relatives) should be quashed on the grounds that the allegations are general and omnibus in nature.

2. Whether the F.I.R. against Petitioner No. 5 (the husband) meets the threshold for a prima facie case regarding specific allegations of cruelty and miscarriage.

The Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS) to prevent the abuse of the process of law.

It relied primarily on the precedent of Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023 SCC Online SC 1083), which establishes that general and omnibus allegations against relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without specific overt acts, warrant quashing to ensure justice.

Regarding Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 (Dipu Singh and Tuli Singh @ Ritika), the Court observed that the allegations were "general and omnibus" and failed to attribute any specific overt act to them.

The Court determined their implication was based solely on familial proximity to the husband rather than independent conduct.

Conversely, as to Petitioner No. 5 (the husband), the Court found he was the "principal accused" with "specific and grave allegations" directed at him, including the forcible administration of medicine causing miscarriage.

The Court noted that in a Section 482 proceeding, it cannot evaluate the truthfulness of allegations if a prima facie case is established.

The application for Petitioner No. 5 (Prakash Kumar Singh) was dismissed on merits, and he must face trial. The Court directed the Trial Court to proceed expeditiously against the remaining accused (Petitioners 1, 2, and 5) and submit a compliance report within three months.