Matrimonial prosecutions against relatives cannot rest on general, omnibus allegations alone.

The complainant married Accused No. 1 on 2 December 2021.

She alleged that, after an initially cordial period, Accused Nos. 1–4 harassed her physically and mentally, including by assault and dowry-related conduct.

The petitioners—Accused Nos. 2–4 and relatives of the complainant’s husband—were alleged to have abetted Accused No. 1, although they lived separately from the couple.

The complaint was lodged on 5 March 2023 concerning alleged events on 12 May 2022; the police investigated and filed a charge sheet for offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings against them under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS.

Whether the allegations against the petitioners, considered with the materials on record, made out a prima facie case for the charged offences.

Whether continuation of the prosecution against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of process of law warranting exercise of the High Court’s quashing jurisdiction.

The Court considered the High Court’s power under Section 482 CrPC, corresponding to Section 528 BNSS, to quash criminal proceedings where continuation would be an abuse of process.

It applied the principle in State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Madhusudhan Rao, (2008) 15 SCC 582, that unexplained delay in lodging an FIR may raise concerns about embellishment and should be satisfactorily explained.

Under Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599, general and omnibus allegations lacking specific roles may not warrant prosecution of relatives.

The Court relied on Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2014 SC 957, for the requirements of intentional insult and provocation under Section 504 IPC.

It also considered the ingredients of criminal intimidation under Sections 503–506 IPC and the requirement of material supporting the alleged bodily injury under Section 323 IPC.

The Court noted that the complaint was lodged approximately ten months after the alleged incident and that the delay had not been explained.

It found the allegations against the petitioners—who were relatives of the complainant’s husband and lived separately from the couple—to be general and unsupported by material showing that they had subjected the complainant to cruelty or demanded dowry.

It further held that the ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 IPC were not established, including the requisite intentional insult or threat, and noted the absence of a wound certificate supporting the allegation under Section 323 IPC.

On that basis, the Court concluded that the charged offences were not made out against the petitioners and that allowing the prosecution to continue would constitute an abuse of process.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, were disposed of.