HEADLINE: Vague and Verbatim Allegations in Matrimonial Disputes Constitute Abuse of Process Warranting Quashing of Criminal Proceedings Summary: The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings involving grave charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and POCSO Act, observing that the allegations were "generic, vague, and omnibus" in nature. The Court noted that the statements of the complainant and the victim were verbatim reproductions, indicating tutoring, and were filed amid a history of matrimonial discord. Emphasizing the lack of medical evidence to support serious allegations like rape and physical assault, the Court ruled that setting criminal law in motion based on "phantom claims" intended for personal vendetta constitutes a gross abuse of the judicial process. The judgment further cautions the legal fraternity against encouraging vexatious "matrimonial bouquets" of litigation designed to exert pressure on spouses.

The Appellants (husband, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, and brother-in-law of the Complainant) were embroiled in over ten civil and criminal litigations with Respondent No. 2 following a matrimonial separation in 2011.

In September 2024, fourteen years after the separation and while the children were in the Appellants' custody, the Complainant filed a complaint alleging that Appellant No. 1 (father) and Appellant No. 4 (uncle) had raped the minor prosecutrix, and Appellants No. 2 and 3 had assaulted and intimidated her.

The Trial Court took cognizance and issued summons.

The Allahabad High Court refused to quash the proceedings, holding the allegations triable.

The Appellants challenged this refusal, contending the case was a malicious counterblast to ongoing matrimonial disputes.

1. Whether the allegations in the complaint and the statements recorded under Sections 223 and 225 of the BNSS prima facie constitute the alleged offences under the BNS and POCSO Act.

2. Whether the criminal proceedings were instituted with a mala fide ulterior motive to wreak vengeance, warranting quashment under the principles of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.

The Court applied the definition of "penetrative sexual assault" under Section 3 of the POCSO Act and "rape" under Section 63/65 of the BNS, requiring specific acts of penetration or insertion.

It invoked Sections 74 (outraging modesty), 115 (voluntarily causing hurt), 351 (criminal intimidation), and 352 (intentional insult) of the BNS.

Crucially, the Court relied on the Seven Categories for quashing criminal proceedings established in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, specifically regarding inherently improbable allegations and proceedings attended with mala fides.

It also referenced the Justice J.S. Verma Committee Report regarding the necessity of medical examinations in sexual offence cases.

The Court found the allegations of rape to be vague, generic "blanket statements" lacking specific dates or factual details of the acts.

It noted that the statements of the Complainant and the prosecutrix were "verbatim reproductions" and "parrot-like," suggesting tutoring during the four-month window after the daughter moved to the Complainant’s house.

The Court observed that despite allegations of grave physical injury (insertion of a hammer handle), no medical report or evidence of treatment was produced, which was deemed "fatal to the case of the prosecution".

The Court highlighed the "worrying trend" of "matrimonial bouquets"—multiple frivolous filings—noting that the 14-year delay in making these allegations, coupled with the existing 10+ cases between the parties, indicated the complaint was a tool for "personal vendetta" and "arm-twisting".

The Court allowed the appeal and quashed Complaint Case No. 05 of 2025, the cognizance order dated 07.02.2025, and the summoning order dated 18.08.2025.

It held that permitting the trial to continue would constitute an abuse of the process of law, as the charges lacked any "kernel of truth" and were designed to settle personal scores.