Matrimonial FIRs lacking particularised allegations disclosing statutory ingredients may be quashed as an abuse of process.

The petitions challenged FIR/Case Crime No. 0227 of 2025, registered at Police Station Hari Parvat, Agra, under Sections 85, 115(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The FIR alleged dowry demands, cruelty, assault, attempted strangulation, retention of stridhan and a later threat; the marriage had taken place on 12 November 2024 and the wife left the matrimonial home on 3 February 2025.

The petitioners disputed the allegations and relied, among other matters, on the husband’s divorce petition filed on 3 May 2025, the FIR’s registration on 30 June 2025, and medical records which they said did not support the alleged injuries.

The High Court heard the two petitions together because they arose from the same FIR.

1. Whether the FIR, read as a whole and taken at its highest, disclosed the ingredients of the offences under Sections 85, 115(2) and 352 of the BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

2. Whether, in the factual and chronological context, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve a legitimate purpose or amount to an abuse of process

3. Whether the case fell within the exceptional categories in Bhajan Lal warranting quashing under Article 226 of the Constitution

Under R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, a High Court ordinarily must not assess credibility or conduct a mini-trial, but may quash an FIR where its allegations, even if accepted in full, do not disclose an offence or where proceedings are manifestly mala fide or an abuse of process.

Section 85 read with Section 86 BNS concerns specified forms of cruelty, including wilful conduct likely to cause grave injury or harassment connected with an unlawful demand; Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act respectively address giving or taking dowry and demanding dowry, which requires a connection with the marriage.

Sections 115(2) and 352 BNS require, respectively, voluntarily caused hurt and intentional insult with the requisite provocation and likelihood of breach of public peace or another offence.

The Court also relied on Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor concerning consideration of incontrovertible defence material, and on Kahkashan Kausar, Dara Lakshmi Narayana, Shobhit Kumar Mittal and Kamal v. State of Gujarat regarding specific allegations, individual attribution and the significance of chronology in matrimonial prosecutions.

The Court found that the alleged monetary demands, despite being stated as specific amounts, lacked adequate particulars identifying who made each demand, when and in what circumstances, or how the alleged harassment was connected to it; the allegations also attributed conduct collectively to the matrimonial family rather than distinguishing each petitioner’s acts.

It treated the absence of earlier complaints, police intervention, PCR calls or a contemporaneous medico-legal record not as conclusive proof that no assault occurred, but as circumstances to be considered cumulatively with the short cohabitation, separation, prior divorce proceedings and delay before the FIR.

Applying Bhajan Lal, the Court concluded that the allegations lacked sufficient factual particularity to disclose the invoked offences and that, in the circumstances, continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of process.

It clarified that the decision did not determine the merits of the matrimonial proceedings and did not prevent the respondent wife from pursuing any otherwise maintainable independent remedy.