General and omnibus cruelty allegations against marital relatives warrant quashing of criminal proceedings.

The complainant alleged that she married Petitioner No. 1, Nadeem Zeoul, in 2013 according to Muslim rites and that her parents provided cash, jewellery, clothes and household articles at the time of marriage.

She alleged that after marriage, the petitioners demanded an additional dowry of a Hero Honda motorcycle and ₹2,00,000, and subjected her to physical and mental cruelty, including assault, confinement, threats to kill her, and attempts to burn her with kerosene.

The Judicial Magistrate, Chapra, took cognizance on 30 March 2016 in Complaint Case No. 3219 of 2015 for offences under Sections 379, 323, 498-A, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

During the hearing, counsel sought permission to withdraw the application as against Petitioner No. 1, Nadeem Zeoul; permission was granted and the application was dismissed as withdrawn against him.

Whether the allegations against Petitioners Nos. 2 to 5, who were the complainant’s relatives by marriage, were general and omnibus and therefore insufficient to sustain the criminal proceedings for the alleged offences, particularly Section 498-A IPC?

Whether the order dated 30 March 2016 taking cognizance against Petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 was liable to be quashed as an abuse of the process of law?

The Court considered the allegations relating to Sections 379, 323, 498-A, 504 and 506 IPC, particularly the requirement that allegations of cruelty against relatives of the husband must disclose specific and credible acts rather than vague or omnibus accusations.

It 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, Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599, and principally Abhishek v. State of M.P., (2023) 16 SCC 666; 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083, for the principle that general, vague and omnibus allegations against the husband’s relatives, without distinct overt acts, may justify quashing of proceedings to prevent abuse of the criminal process.

The Court exercised its quashing jurisdiction in relation to the cognizance order.

The Court noted that Petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 were the complainant’s father-in-law, mother-in-law, married sister-in-law and unmarried sister-in-law, respectively.

Although the complaint attributed allegations of confinement, threats and an attempted burning to the petitioners, the Court found the accusations to be general and omnibus in nature.

Applying the Supreme Court’s caution against continuing prosecutions based on vague allegations against the husband’s relatives, the Court held that the material did not justify continuation of the proceedings against Petitioners Nos. 2 to 5.

Their plea that they lived separately and had no involvement in the couple’s day-to-day affairs was also noted, although the decision principally rested on the omnibus nature of the allegations.

The application had already been dismissed as withdrawn against Petitioner No. 1, Nadeem Zeoul.

The proceedings against Petitioner No. 1 were stated to continue, and the application was accordingly allowed to the extent of Petitioners Nos. 2 to 5.