General and omnibus allegations against separately residing in-laws warrant quashing of criminal proceedings.

Opposite Party No. 2, Nilam Singh, alleged that she married Dipak Sharma on 24 February 2012 and that her parental family gave ₹7,00,000 in cash and articles worth approximately ₹3,00,000 at the time of marriage.

She alleged that, after marriage, her in-laws subjected her to cruelty and demanded further dowry, including a car.

She further alleged that on 14 May 2012 the accused took away her clothes and ornaments, assaulted her, and expelled her from the matrimonial home.

She thereafter instituted Complaint Case No. 966 of 2014 under Sections 323 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against her husband and his relatives.

The petitioners, Ajay Sharma and Sonamukhi Devi, were the father-in-law and mother-in-law of Opposite Party No. 2.

They claimed that they lived separately and had no involvement in the complainant’s day-to-day matrimonial affairs, and that the allegations against them were general and omnibus.

Their application under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking discharge was rejected by the learned ACJM-VII, Aurangabad, on 30 June 2018.

Their criminal revision was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, on 3 October 2018.

Whether the petitioners, being the complainant’s father-in-law and mother-in-law, could be discharged or the proceedings against them quashed where the allegations of cruelty and assault were general and omnibus, and they allegedly lived separately from the complainant?

Whether continuation of the complaint proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of court warranting exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC?

The Court considered Sections 323 and 498-A IPC, concerning voluntarily causing hurt and cruelty by the husband or his relatives, and Section 245 CrPC, relating to discharge in a warrant case instituted otherwise than on a police report.

It exercised the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Relying principally on Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083, and the authorities discussed therein—Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599, Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667, and Neelu Chopra v. Bharti, (2009) 10 SCC 184—the Court held that general and omnibus allegations against relatives of the husband, without specific particulars or attribution of individual roles, may constitute misuse of Section 498-A IPC and justify quashing.

The Court also relied on Mahmood Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh for the principle that, in cases alleged to be frivolous, vexatious, or malicious, the High Court may scrutinise the complaint and surrounding circumstances with care.

The categories in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly cases where the allegations do not disclose an offence or where proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides or instituted to wreak vengeance, were applied as guiding principles.

The Court examined the complainant’s allegations against the petitioners in the context of the principles governing prosecution of relatives in matrimonial disputes.

It found that the petitioners were the complainant’s in-laws, were living separately, and had no apparent connection with her daily domestic affairs.

The allegations of cruelty and dowry demand, insofar as they related to the petitioners, were considered general and omnibus and did not sufficiently identify specific acts or individual roles attributable to them.

Applying Abhishek, Kahkashan Kausar, Preeti Gupta, and Neelu Chopra, the Court held that permitting the prosecution to continue in such circumstances would cause unnecessary criminal process against close relatives and amount to abuse of the process of law.

It held that, in view of the petitioners’ separate residence and the absence of specific allegations against them, continuation of the criminal proceedings was an abuse of the process of court.

Accordingly, the Court quashed and set aside the Sessions Judge’s order dated 3 October 2018 and the Magistrate’s order dated 30 June 2018, along with all consequential proceedings arising from Complaint Case No. 966 of 2014 and Trial No. 832 of 2018, insofar as they concerned Ajay Sharma and Sonamukhi Devi.

The application was allowed.