General and omnibus Section 498A IPC allegations warrant quashing where prosecution is malicious and vexatious.

The complainant, Sanjeeta Devi, alleged that she married petitioner No. 2 in May 2011 and that her parental family incurred approximately ₹3 lakhs and gave articles at the time of marriage.

She alleged that the petitioners—her father-in-law, husband and mother-in-law—demanded an additional ₹50,000 and subjected her to cruelty.

She further alleged that on 24 August 2014 she was beaten, ousted from her matrimonial home and deprived of her jewellery.

After an earlier complaint was compromised, she returned to the matrimonial home, became pregnant, and allegedly faced renewed demands, torture, pressure to undergo abortion, threats and expulsion from the matrimonial home.

The complainant thereafter instituted Complaint Case No. 723 of 2015.

The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Madhubani, took cognizance against the petitioners for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code by order dated 11 December 2015.

The petitioners sought quashing of the cognizance order, contending that the allegations were general and omnibus, that the complainant had instituted multiple proceedings, and that the prosecution was malicious and vexatious.

Whether the continuation of the criminal proceeding under Section 498A IPC against the petitioners, in view of the alleged general and omnibus allegations, would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court?

Whether the order dated 11 December 2015 taking cognizance was liable to be quashed in view of the complainant’s alleged institution of multiple proceedings and the asserted malicious or vexatious nature of the prosecution?

The Court considered Section 498A IPC, which penalises cruelty by the husband or his relatives towards a married woman.

It applied the principles governing quashing of criminal proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, particularly the categories identified in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, where proceedings may be quashed, inter alia, when the allegations do not disclose an offence or are manifestly attended with mala fide motives.

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, unsupported by specific overt acts against the relatives of the husband, may justify quashing where continuation of the prosecution would constitute an abuse of process.

The Court accepted the petitioners’ contention that the allegations against them were general and omnibus and did not specify distinct overt acts attributable to each petitioner.

It further considered the complainant’s earlier complaint, the compromise between the parties, and the subsequent complaint allegedly filed after institution of the present case as indicative of multiple proceedings and a malicious or vexatious prosecution.

Applying the principles in Bhajan Lal and the decisions concerning misuse of Section 498A IPC in cases involving vague allegations against relatives, the Court concluded that continuation of the proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

It accordingly quashed the cognizance order dated 11 December 2015 passed in Complaint Case No. 723 of 2015, T.R. No. 1387 of 2017, by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Madhubani, and allowed the criminal miscellaneous application.