Gujarat HC Quashes FIR Against Husband’s Relatives, Finding Only Vague Incitement Allegations And No Specific Acts Against Them

The petitioners, described as the complainant’s in-laws and maternal uncle and aunt, sought quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, of FIR No. 11210022241605 of 2024, registered at Kapodra Police Station, Surat, and the consequential proceedings.

They argued that the FIR contained only general allegations and disclosed no offence against them.

The complainant opposed quashing, alleging that the petitioners incited her husband, whose conduct subjected her to physical and mental cruelty.

The Court found that the allegations against the petitioners were general and lacked specific incidents.

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of a court or otherwise secure the ends of justice.

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code concerns cruelty by a husband or his relatives, including conduct likely to cause grave injury or danger to a woman’s physical or mental health, or harassment to coerce her or her relatives to meet an unlawful demand.

Relying on Geeta Mehrotra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court applied the principle that bald or omnibus allegations against relatives, without material supporting their individual involvement, may not justify subjecting them to trial.

It also relied on Kamal v. State of Gujarat and Muppidi Lakshmi Narayana Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh in assessing whether general allegations against relatives in a matrimonial dispute warranted continuation of proceedings.

The Court assessed the FIR on its face and found that the petitioners’ alleged role was limited to inciting the complainant’s husband.

Although the FIR attributed the husband’s physical and mental cruelty to that incitement, it did not identify specific incidents or particular overt acts by the petitioners.

Applying the principles concerning vague and omnibus allegations against relatives, the Court concluded that the allegations did not provide a sufficient basis to require the petitioners to face trial and that continuing the proceedings against them would be an abuse of process.

Direct service was permitted.