General and omnibus allegations cannot sustain criminal prosecution against relatives in matrimonial disputes.

The petitioners, who were relatives of Krishna Kumar Singh, husband of opposite party no. 2, challenged the order dated 25 April 2023 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran, in Chanpatia (Kumarbagh O.P.) P.S. Case No. 83 of 2022.

By that order, cognizance was taken against them under Sections 494, 498-A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The prosecution alleged that opposite party no. 2 had been harassed and subjected to cruelty and was ousted from her matrimonial home, while her husband had contracted a second marriage.

The petitioners contended that the allegations against them were general and omnibus, and that the principal allegation of bigamy under Section 494 IPC was directed against the husband alone.

Whether the cognizance order under Sections 494, 498-A and 34 IPC could be sustained against the petitioners where the allegations against them were general and omnibus in nature.

Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings against the husband’s relatives, in the absence of specific allegations attributing distinct criminal acts to them, would constitute an abuse of the process of law.

Whether Section 494 IPC was applicable to the petitioners when the allegation of contracting a second marriage was directed principally against the husband of opposite party no. 2.

The Court considered Sections 494, 498-A and 34 IPC: Section 494 concerns contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of a lawful marriage, Section 498-A criminalises cruelty by the husband or his relatives, and Section 34 imputes joint liability where a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

The Court relied on Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599, which holds that general and omnibus allegations, without specific roles being attributed to relatives of the husband, should not compel them to undergo the rigours of a criminal trial.

It further relied on Dara Laxmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735, concerning the impermissibility of unnecessarily implicating the husband’s family members in matrimonial disputes where allegations lack specificity.

Geddam Jhansi v. State of Telangana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 263, reiterates that criminal proceedings in domestic disputes should be based on specific allegations and supporting material constituting a prima facie offence, and that mere inaction or presence of family members cannot itself constitute criminal conduct.

The Court examined the FIR and found that the allegations against the petitioners were, by and large, general and omnibus, notwithstanding certain specific imputations.

It concluded that the allegations appeared to have been introduced so as to implicate the husband’s entire family in the matrimonial dispute, without clearly identifying distinct criminal acts attributable to each petitioner.

Applying the principles in Kahkashan Kausar, Dara Laxmi Narayana and Geddam Jhansi, the Court held that relatives should not be subjected to a criminal trial merely because they are connected with the husband or are alleged generally to have participated in matrimonial cruelty.

The Court also noted that the allegation of bigamy primarily concerned the husband, who was already facing prosecution, and that the material did not justify continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners under the cited provisions.

The Court held that the general and omnibus allegations against the petitioners, who were relatives of the husband, did not justify their continued prosecution.

The criminal proceedings against the husband were left undisturbed, and the application was accordingly allowed.