General allegations against separately residing relatives do not sustain Section 498A prosecution.

The complainant alleged that the petitioners subjected her to mental and physical cruelty over non-fulfilment of dowry demands

The S.D.J.M., Sherghati, Gaya, took cognizance under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case No. 109 of 2017

Petitioners 3 and 4 sought quashing, contending that they lived separately, had no involvement in the complainant’s domestic affairs, and faced only general and omnibus allegations

The complainant did not appear despite service of notice

The judgment describes the challenged cognizance order as dated 15 May 2027, although the judgment itself is dated 5 October 2026

1. Whether the general and omnibus allegations of cruelty and dowry demand disclosed a prima facie case under Section 498A IPC against petitioners 3 and 4.

2. Whether the proceedings against petitioners 3 and 4 should be quashed under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction where they were stated to live separately and have no connection with the complainant’s daily or domestic affairs.

Section 498A IPC criminalises specified forms of cruelty by a husband or his relatives.

The High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice.

Applying State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, proceedings may be quashed where the allegations, even taken at face value, do not make out an offence or where the prosecution is manifestly mala fide.

The Court also relied on Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which discussed the need for caution where matrimonial complaints contain general allegations against relatives, alongside Kahkashan Kausar, Preeti Gupta, and Neelu Chopra on the need for specific allegations and individual roles; and Neeharika Infrastructure on the limits and sparing exercise of quashing power.

The Court considered the allegations against petitioners 3 and 4 to be general and omnibus and accepted, for the purpose of the quashing application, that they were living separately and had no connection with the complainant’s daily or domestic affairs.

Applying the principles concerning vague allegations against relatives in matrimonial cases, the Court concluded that continuing the prosecution against these two petitioners would not be justified.

The cognizance order and all consequential proceedings in Complaint Case No. 109 of 2017 were quashed and set aside only as to petitioners 3 and 4; the judgment did not grant that relief to petitioners 1, 2, or 5.