FIR quashed for omnibus allegations against husband's family in matrimonial dispute.

The petitioner, Prakash @ Kallu Kirad Bhilala, filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 / Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the FIR lodged at Crime No. 91/2022 at Police Station - Ambua, District Alirajpur, under Sections 498-A, 323, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and all subsequent proceedings.

The FIR was filed by respondent No. 2/complainant, Smt. Jamna Kirad, alleging ill-treatment by her in-laws, including her husband Gopal, mother-in-law Amna, brother-in-law Prakash @ Kalu (petitioner), sisters-in-law Manju, Sunita, and Sangeeta, and brother-in-law Rajendra.

The petitioner argued that only omnibus allegations were made against him due to his relationship with the complainant's husband, and that this criminal case jeopardized his future as he had passed the MPPSC State Eligibility Test-2022 for Assistant Professor.

The husband had also agreed to pay Rs. 10,000 as maintenance.

The cause of action in the FIR was stated to be between June 29, 2021, and April 3, 2022, with the FIR lodged on April 3, 2022, itself.

The MLC revealed a single simple injury suffered by the complainant, dating the incident of "maar peet" to February 26, 2022, making the genesis of the injury doubtful given the FIR date.

1. Whether the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised to quash an FIR containing only omnibus allegations against the family members of the husband in a matrimonial dispute?

The court primarily applied Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), 1973 (or Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) which grants inherent power to the High Court to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

It relied on precedents from the Supreme Court, including *Preeti Gupta and Another Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another*.

It relied on precedents from the Supreme Court, including *Neelu Chopra and another Vs. Bharti*.

It relied on precedents from the Supreme Court, including *Geeta Mehrotra and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another*.

It relied on precedents from the Supreme Court, including *Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar* [(2022) 6 SCC 599].

It relied on precedents from the Supreme Court, including *Abhishek Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh* [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083], which addresses the growing tendency of falsely implicating family members in matrimonial disputes with general omnibus allegations.

The *Abhishek* judgment specifically reiterated that allowing prosecution based on general omnibus allegations without clear specific accusations against in-laws would constitute an abuse of the process of law.

The court found that the FIR against the petitioner contained only "omnibus allegations".

It observed that all six family members of the complainant's husband, including the petitioner (her brother-in-law), were implicated without specific details, mirroring the concerning trend noted by the Supreme Court in *Abhishek (Supra)* regarding false implications of husband's relatives in matrimonial disputes.

The court considered the petitioner's career implications, having passed the State Eligibility Test for Assistant Professor, as a significant factor in the "considerable hardship" caused by the case.

The inconsistency between the stated date of the physical altercation (February 26, 2022) and the FIR lodging date (April 3, 2022), coupled with the simple nature of the single injury noted in the MLC, cast doubt on the genesis of the injury and the credibility of the allegations.

Applying the principles from the *Abhishek* case, the court determined that the lack of specific allegations against the petitioner and the general nature of the complaint amounted to abuse of the legal process, warranting the exercise of inherent powers to secure the ends of justice.

It quashed the FIR lodged at Crime No. 91/2022 registered at Police Station - Ambua, District Alirajpur, under Sections 498-A, 323, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and all other subsequent proceedings arising out of the said crime number, as pending against the petitioner.

The court concluded that it was a fit case for exercising inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to prevent the petitioner from further persecution.