General and Omnibus Allegations Against Separately Residing Relatives in Matrimonial Disputes Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution

The petitioners, who are the nanad (sister-in-law) and nandoi (husband of sister-in-law) of the informant (Opposite Party No. 2), sought quashing of a cognizance order dated 14.09.2020 involving Sections 341, 323, 379, 498A/34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

The informant filed the written report on 01.05.2020, four days after the death of her husband, alleging cruelty and dowry harassment since her marriage in 2007

The petitioners established that they have resided in Patna City—approximately 17 kilometres away from the matrimonial home—and have maintained a separate household without visiting the matrimonial home since 1998

The allegations against the petitioners were that they engaged in "womanising" and aided a general atmosphere of harassment

1. Whether the general and omnibus allegations leveled against the petitioners, who reside separately from the matrimonial home, are sufficient to sustain a criminal prosecution under Section 498A of the IPC

2. Whether the continuation of the proceedings constitutes an abuse of the process of the court when the allegations lack specificity regarding time, date, and individual culpability

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code regarding cruelty by relatives of the husband and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) (the successor to Section 482 of the CrPC) for the quashing of proceedings

The Supreme Court in Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2023) INSC 779], which established that general and omnibus allegations without specific individual culpability cannot justify a criminal trial for distant relatives

The court observed that the allegations against the petitioners were "entirely general and omnibus in character," lacking any specific mention of date, time, or circumstance

It noted the absurdity of the "morally coloured assertions" regarding the petitioners' character, which do not satisfy the legal ingredients of the charged offences

Significant weight was given to the fact that the petitioners resided 17 kilometres away and had not visited the matrimonial home for over two decades—a fact conceded by the prosecution's own records

The court highlighted the 13-year delay in filing the FIR, which was lodged only after the husband's death, without explanation for the prior silence

Following the principle of parity, the court noted that high court orders in related petitions (Cr. Misc. No. 16948/2023) had already quashed proceedings for other co-accused on similar grounds

The application was allowed, and the cognizance order dated 14.09.2020 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger, along with all subsequent proceedings in Kasim Bazar P.S. Case No. 160 of 2020, were quashed insofar as they concerned the two petitioners