FIR against separately residing in-laws quashed where allegations are vague, omnibus, and lack specific roles.

The applicants sought quashing of FIR C.R. No. I-72 of 2016, registered at Madhavpura Police Station, Ahmedabad, for offences under Sections 498A, 376A, 377, 365, 323 and 114 of the IPC under Section 482 CrPC.

Applicant No. 1, the complainant’s husband, had earlier withdrawn his application, and the proceedings continued against Applicant Nos. 2 to 4—the father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law.

The complainant alleged that these applicants taunted her regarding her character, instigated her husband to assault her, and were involved in her alleged abduction on 10 June 2016 for the purpose of compelling her to sign divorce papers.

The applicants contended that the allegations were vague and omnibus, that the complainant had been living separately with her husband and children since 2013, and that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of approximately 82 days.

Although served, the complainant did not appear before the Court.

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR, taken at face value, disclosed the commission of offences under Sections 498A, 376A, 377, 365, 323 and 114 IPC against Applicant Nos. 2 to 4.

2. Whether the FIR and consequential proceedings against the applicants were liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC because the allegations were vague, inherently improbable, unsupported by specific roles, and allegedly motivated by mala fides.

The Court applied Section 482 CrPC, which empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

It relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, particularly the categories permitting quashing where the allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence, disclose no offence even on an uncontroverted reading, are inherently improbable, or are manifestly mala fide.

Relying on Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, 2010 (0) AIJEL-SC 48656, Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, 2022 (0) AIJEL-SC 68351, and K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452, the Court held that courts must scrutinise matrimonial complaints carefully and should not proceed against the husband’s relatives on the basis of general or omnibus allegations without specific instances of involvement.

Section 498A IPC requires specific conduct amounting to cruelty as defined in its statutory explanation.

The Court found that the allegations against Applicant Nos. 2 to 4 were general and lacked distinct overt acts, particularly because the complainant had stated that she and her husband had lived separately from the applicants since 2013.

The alleged cruelty consisted of scattered incidents lacking sufficient proximity or specificity, and the prolonged delay in lodging the FIR after the alleged kidnapping was unexplained.

The allegations concerning kidnapping, rape and abetment were principally directed against the husband; apart from a bald allegation against the brother-in-law, there was no material demonstrating that the applicants had abetted those offences.

Applying the Bhajan Lal principles, the Court concluded that the FIR did not establish the requisite ingredients of the offences against the applicants and that continuing the prosecution would amount to abuse of process.

The proceedings against Applicant No. 1 had already been disposed of as not pressed and were not adjudicated on merits in this order.

Rule was made absolute, with direct service permitted.