General and omnibus allegations under Section 498A IPC warrant quashing proceedings as an abuse of process.

Opposite Party No. 2 alleged that her husband, Petitioner No. 1, and other accused persons, including Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, assaulted her, demanded ₹50,000 for permitting her to reside in her matrimonial home, threatened to kill her, and failed to provide food to her minor child.

On the basis of Mahila P.S. Case No. 20 of 2017, arising out of G.R. No. 1854 of 2017, the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Munger, took cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code by order dated 30 January 2018.

The petitioners sought quashing of the cognizance order, contending that Petitioner No. 1 and the informant had not lived together since 2005, that prior litigations existed between the parties, and that the allegations against Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 were vague, general, and omnibus, without any specific overt act.

The State opposed the application; Opposite Party No. 2 did not appear.

Whether the order dated 30 January 2018 taking cognizance under Sections 498A and 34 IPC was liable to be quashed where the allegations against the petitioners were general, vague, and omnibus and lacked specific overt acts?

Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court under the principles governing quashing of proceedings?

The Court applied Sections 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, concerning cruelty by the husband or his relatives and acts done in furtherance of common intention.

It relied on the inherent jurisdiction principles under State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, including the power to quash proceedings where the allegations do not disclose a prima facie offence or where continuation would amount to abuse of process.

The Court also relied on Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667; Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741; Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P., (2018) 10 SCC 472; and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599, for the principle that general, vague, and omnibus allegations under Section 498A IPC against the husband’s relatives, without specific allegations of overt acts, may justify quashing of the proceedings as an abuse of process.

The Court found that the allegations against the petitioners were general in nature and did not attribute specific overt acts to them.

In light of the absence of a specified date of occurrence, the alleged matrimonial discord, the prior litigation between the parties, and the lack of particularised allegations against the relatives, the Court held that the prosecution was malicious and vexatious and fell within the principles recognised in Bhajan Lal and the subsequent Supreme Court authorities cited by the petitioners.

The Court therefore concluded that permitting the criminal proceedings to continue would constitute an abuse of the process of the Court.

Accordingly, it quashed the cognizance order dated 30 January 2018 passed in G.R. No. 1854 of 2017 by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Munger, insofar as it concerned the petitioners.

The criminal miscellaneous application was allowed.