General and omnibus matrimonial allegations against relatives do not justify continuation of criminal proceedings.

Opposite Party No. 2 lodged Mahila P.S. Case No. 31 of 2023 dated 12 September 2023 against the petitioners and other co-accused under Sections 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, alleging cruelty and harassment arising from non-fulfilment of dowry demands.

The petitioners were the father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law/gotni, and two brothers-in-law of the informant.

They contended that the allegations were general, omnibus, vague, and unsupported by specific dates, incidents, or individual roles.

Allegations concerning the informant’s food being taken away, being made to perform household work, and being ousted from the matrimonial home were also described as vague; petitioner Nos. 3 to 6 allegedly resided separately from the informant and her husband.

The petitioners further relied on the husband’s divorce proceeding, instituted on 25 July 2023, and an informatory petition filed by petitioner No. 1 on 27 April 2023, to assert that the criminal case was lodged with mala fide intent after the informant received notice of the divorce proceeding.

The State opposed quashing, contending that the prosecution should continue at that stage.

Whether the FIR alleging offences under Sections 498A and 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act disclosed specific and legally sustainable allegations against the petitioners, or merely general and omnibus accusations?

Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, who were relatives of the husband and some of whom allegedly lived separately, would amount to an abuse of the process of law warranting exercise of the High Court’s quashing jurisdiction?

The Court considered the FIR registered under Sections 498A and 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

It applied the principle that criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes should not continue against relatives on the basis of vague, general, sweeping, or omnibus allegations lacking specific acts, dates, incidents, or supporting material.

Relying on Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599, the Court held that, in the absence of specific roles, relatives should not be compelled to undergo the rigours of a criminal trial.

It further relied on Geddam Jhansi v. State of Telangana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 263, which requires specific allegations and credible supporting material before criminal law is invoked in domestic disputes and cautions against implicating uninvolved family members or exaggerating matrimonial discord into criminality.

The Court also relied on Dara Laxmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735, for the proposition that relatives living separately should not be unnecessarily roped into criminal proceedings where the accusations lack specific attribution, since continuation of such proceedings may constitute abuse of process.

The Court examined the FIR and found that the allegations against the petitioners were general, sweeping, and omnibus, without any specific date, time period, overt act, or individual role being attributed to them.

The alleged acts concerning dowry demand, cruelty, deprivation of food, household work, and ouster were considered insufficiently particularised to establish a prima facie case against each petitioner.

The Court also took note of the submission that petitioner Nos. 3 to 6 lived separately from the informant and her husband, which weakened the allegation of their continuous involvement in the alleged matrimonial cruelty.

Applying the principles in Kahkashan Kausar, Geddam Jhansi, and Dara Laxmi Narayana, the Court held that permitting prosecution based solely on such unsubstantiated and collective allegations would unnecessarily subject the petitioners to the hardships of criminal trial and would amount to misuse of the criminal process.

It held that the FIR did not disclose specific or prima facie sustainable allegations against them and that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law and cause a grave miscarriage of justice.

Accordingly, Mahila P.S. Case No. 31 of 2023 dated 12 September 2023, registered under Sections 498A and 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, was quashed insofar as it related to the present six petitioners.

The application was allowed.