General and omnibus allegations against in-laws without specific involvement warrant quashing of criminal prosecution.

The de facto complainant alleged that she married Bhanu Bikash Ghosh on 2 March 2001 and was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by her in-laws on account of dowry demands.

She further alleged that, on 15 January 2024, the accused abused and assaulted her, outraged her modesty, and snatched her gold chain.

The petitioners, who were the complainant’s in-laws, were arrayed as accused in Domjur P.S. Case No. 42 of 2024, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 350 of 2024, under Sections 498A/323/506/34 of the IPC.

The complainant’s husband was not made an accused.

The parties resided in the same premises and were involved in civil and other disputes.

After submission of charge-sheet No. 153 of 2024, the petitioners sought quashing of the criminal proceeding.

Whether the allegations in the FIR and the materials collected during investigation disclosed the ingredients of offences under Sections 498A, 323, 506 and 34 of the IPC against the petitioners.

Whether continuation of the criminal proceeding, founded on general and omnibus allegations against the in-laws in the context of matrimonial and civil disputes, amounted to an abuse of the process of law warranting exercise of the High Court’s revisional/quashing jurisdiction.

The Court applied Section 498A IPC, including its Explanation defining cruelty as wilful conduct likely to drive a woman to suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, or harassment intended to coerce an unlawful demand for property or valuable security.

It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Anr., which held that vague and omnibus allegations, without specific particulars of time, place, manner or individual involvement, cannot sustain prosecution of family members in matrimonial disputes.

The Court also relied on G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693, and Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667, for the principle that matrimonial complaints must be scrutinised with care and that criminal proceedings should not be used to harass relatives or settle personal scores.

Proceedings may be quashed where continuation would constitute an abuse of the process of law, corresponding to the principles recognised in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.

The Court found that the allegations of dowry-related mental and physical cruelty were general in nature and did not attribute specific acts to any particular petitioner.

Although the petitioners were admittedly the complainant’s in-laws and resided in the same premises, the materials in the case diary did not disclose concrete facts satisfying the statutory ingredients of cruelty, assault, criminal intimidation or common intention.

The existence of civil property disputes and cross-litigation, together with the non-implication of the husband, reinforced the conclusion that the criminal case arose from a personal dispute between the complainant and her in-laws.

Applying the principles against prosecuting family members on the basis of vague and sweeping allegations, the Court held that continuation of the proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

It held that no prima facie case was made out against Manabendra Nath Ghosh, Samir Ghosh, Khokon Ghosh, Annapurna Ghosh, Saswati Ghosh and Jhuma Ghosh.

Accordingly, Domjur P.S. Case No. 42 of 2024, charge-sheet No. 153 of 2024, and the corresponding G.R. Case No. 350 of 2024 under Sections 498A/323/506/34 IPC, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah, were quashed insofar as they concerned the petitioners.

All connected applications were disposed of, and any interim order was vacated.