Matrimonial prosecution against relatives quashed where allegations were general, omnibus, and retaliatory, constituting abuse of process.

The complainant, Rani Devi, alleged that her marriage with Shashi Kumar Yadav @ Ajit Kumar was solemnised on 24 February 2015. She claimed that her father had given cash of ₹75,000, a buffalo, utensils and other articles at the time of marriage. Thereafter, the accused allegedly demanded ₹60,000, a motorcycle and a colour television, subjected her to cruelty, assaulted and expelled her from the matrimonial home on 10 April 2015, and retained her jewellery.

The petitioners—Surendra Yadav, Rita Devi and Rishi Kumar—were the complainant’s father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law respectively.

The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Araria, took cognizance of offences under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act by order dated 1 June 2016 in Complaint Case No. 1187 of 2015.

The petitioners sought quashing of that order, contending that the allegations against them were general and omnibus and that the complaint was lodged as a retaliatory counterblast to a criminal case instituted by petitioner No. 1 against the complainant’s family.

1. Whether the cognizance order dated 1 June 2016, insofar as it concerned the petitioners for offences under Sections 498A/34 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, was liable to be quashed because the allegations against them were general, omnibus and insufficiently specific.

2. Whether continuation of the prosecution against the petitioners amounted to an abuse of the process of the court, particularly when the complaint was alleged to be a retaliatory counterblast to an earlier case instituted by petitioner No. 1.

The Court considered Sections 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, relating respectively to cruelty by the husband or his relatives and acts done in furtherance of common intention, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act concerning giving or taking dowry and demanding dowry.

It applied the inherent jurisdiction principles governing quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, including the seventh category in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, where proceedings instituted maliciously or with an ulterior motive may be quashed.

The Court also relied on Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667; K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452; Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana, (2024) 6 SCR 129; and Nitin Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2013, for the principle that relatives of the husband should not be prosecuted on vague, general or omnibus allegations arising from matrimonial discord.

The Court found that the allegations against the petitioners were general and omnibus rather than specific to their individual conduct.

It further considered the fact that petitioner No. 1 had lodged an earlier police case against the complainant’s father and others, and that the present complaint was instituted thereafter, supporting the petitioners’ contention that it was a counterblast.

Applying the principles against mechanically implicating the husband’s relatives in matrimonial disputes and the Bhajan Lal category concerning malicious prosecution, the Court concluded that continuation of the proceedings against these petitioners would constitute an abuse of the process of the court.

Accordingly, it quashed the cognizance order dated 1 June 2016 in Complaint Case No. 1187 of 2015, insofar as it related to Surendra Yadav, Rita Devi and Rishi Kumar. The application was allowed.