General and omnibus allegations against in-laws, coupled with settlement, warrant quashing of criminal proceedings.

Opposite Party No. 2, Seema Kumar, filed Complaint Case No. 2175(C)/2016 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, alleging offences under Sections 323, 324, 384, 420, 494, 498A, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

She alleged that accused No. 1 was her husband, accused No. 2 her mother-in-law, and accused Nos. 3 and 4 the elder and younger brothers of her husband. The marriage took place on 26 June 1989, and was registered on 24 July 1998

By order dated 20 June 2017, the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna, took cognizance against the petitioners and the complainant’s husband under Sections 498A and 406 IPC

The petitioners, who were the husband’s relatives, contended that the complaint contained only general and omnibus allegations and no specific allegations against them. They further submitted that the dispute had been compromised and that the cognizance order against the husband had already been quashed in a connected proceeding, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3506 of 2019, by order dated 2 May 2023

1. Whether the cognizance order dated 20 June 2017 under Sections 498A and 406 IPC was liable to be quashed insofar as it related to the petitioners, in view of the absence of specific allegations against them

2. Whether the compromise between the parties and the quashing of the cognizance order against the complainant’s husband justified similar relief to the petitioners, who were the husband’s relatives

The Court considered the scope of its inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings where the allegations against relatives are general and omnibus and do not disclose the specific ingredients of the alleged offences. The proceedings arose from cognizance under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, concerning cruelty by the husband or his relatives and criminal breach of trust, respectively

The Court relied on Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083, for the principle that relatives should not be subjected to criminal prosecution on the basis of vague, general or omnibus allegations unsupported by specific acts

It also took into account the compromise between the parties and the prior quashing of the cognizance order against the husband

The Court found that although the complaint narrated events allegedly occurring during the matrimonial relationship, it did not contain any specific allegation constituting cruelty or criminal breach of trust against the three petitioners individually

Since the petitioners were relatives of the complainant’s husband and were facing only general and omnibus allegations, the prosecution against them fell within the category of proceedings liable to be quashed under the principle recognised in Abhishek

The Court additionally noted that the matrimonial dispute had been compromised and that the cognizance order against the husband had already been quashed in a connected matter, reinforcing the appropriateness of granting identical relief to the petitioners

The criminal miscellaneous petition was accordingly allowed, and the judgment was directed to be communicated to the trial court along with the record, if any