General and omnibus allegations against in-laws in matrimonial disputes cannot sustain criminal prosecution under BNS or IPC.

The petitioners (husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law) sought the quashing of FIR Crime No. 08/2025 registered at Police Station Nowgaon under Sections 85, 115(2), 296, 351(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The Complainant/Respondent No. 2 alleged that following her marriage on 13.02.2024, she was subjected to physical and mental harassment and demands for dowry (including a vehicle and 5 lakhs cash) by all three petitioners, leading her to leave the matrimonial home on 22.02.2024.

At the outset, the petition was dismissed as "not pressed" regarding Petitioner No. 1 (husband).

The remaining petitioners (in-laws) argued that the allegations against them were vague, omnibus, and lacked specific instances of criminal conduct.

1. Whether the criminal proceedings against the father-in-law and mother-in-law (Petitioners No. 2 and 3) are liable to be quashed on the ground that the allegations are general and omnibus in nature.

2. Whether the continuation of a criminal trial against close relatives of the husband in the absence of specific allegations constitutes an abuse of the process of law.

The Court primarily applied Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (read with Section 528 of BNSS, 2023) regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of legal process.

It relied on the precedent of *Kahkashan Kausar Alias Sonam v. State of Bihar* (2022) 6 SCC 599, which established that relatives cannot be tried on the basis of general omnibus allegations in matrimonial disputes.

It further cited *Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand* (2010) 7 SCC 667.

It further cited *Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P.* (2012) 10 SCC 741, both emphasizing the need to scrutinize complaints to prevent the over-implication of husband’s relatives.

Finally, it referenced *Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana* (2024) SCC Online SC 759, which warned against the mechanical application of Section 498A IPC (now Sections 85 and 86 BNS).

The Court observed that the FIR and the subsequent chargesheet contained "bald and omnibus allegations" against the in-laws without any credible evidence of their specific roles in the alleged offenses.

The Court reasoned that the statements recorded during the investigation were merely a "reproduction of the FIR" and lacked specific material to justify a trial.

Applying the principles from *Kahkashan Kausar*, the Court determined that in matrimonial disputes, there is a distinct tendency to rope in all family members to exert pressure on the husband.

It noted that the marriage lasted only a few days before the complainant left, and the allegations failed to move beyond casual references to the in-laws' names.

Consequently, forcing Petitoners No. 2 and 3 to undergo the "tribulations of a trial" without specific attributed roles would result in a travesty of justice.

The petition was partly allowed; the FIR (Crime No. 08/2025) and all consequential criminal proceedings were quashed specifically against Petitioner No. 2 (Om Prakash Rathore) and Petitioner No. 3 (Smt. Geeta Devi Rathore).

The Court ordered that proceedings shall continue against Petitioner No. 1 (the husband).