Matrimonial prosecution against relatives cannot proceed on bald, omnibus allegations lacking specific overt acts.

Respondent No. 2 alleged that, after her marriage to accused No. 1, she faced harassment by him and his parents.

She further alleged that on 25 October 2023, the petitioners intercepted and assaulted her, her mother and her child, and threatened her.

The police registered a case and, after investigation, filed a charge sheet against the petitioners for offences under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC; the Section 498A offence was dropped.

The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.

They argued, among other things, that the complainant and her mother were elsewhere on the alleged date and that the allegations against petitioners 2 and 3 were general and lacked specific overt acts.

The complainant relied on witness statements and a wound certificate in the charge-sheet material.

1. Whether the proceedings against accused No. 1 should be quashed where the charge-sheet materials, including witness statements and a wound certificate, disclose prima facie allegations, despite the petitioners’ defence that the complainant was elsewhere on the date of the alleged incident

2. Whether the proceedings against accused Nos. 2 and 3 should be quashed where the allegations against them are bald and omnibus and do not attribute specific overt acts constituting the charged offences

Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings where their continuation would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.

At this stage, the court considers whether the complaint and charge-sheet materials disclose a prima facie case; it does not adjudicate a disputed factual defence that is for trial.

Where the materials disclose prima facie allegations against an accused, proceedings may continue; where they contain only bald and omnibus allegations and do not disclose specific acts constituting the alleged offences, continuation may be an abuse of process.

The charged offences were under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC.

No precedent was cited.

The wound certificate and material-witness statements provided prima facie support for the allegation that accused No. 1 assaulted the complainant.

The petitioners’ claim that the complainant and her mother attended a wedding in Kadapa on the incident date raised a factual defence that could not be resolved in a Section 482 petition; the proceedings against accused No. 1 therefore warranted continuation.

By contrast, the complaint and charge-sheet materials attributed no specific overt acts to accused Nos. 2 and 3 and contained only bald and omnibus allegations.

Given that the Section 498A offence had also been dropped, the court held that continuing the proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of process.

It allowed the petition as to petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 and quashed the proceedings against them in C.C. No. 3504/2024 for offences under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC.