Matrimonial prosecutions may be quashed where omnibus allegations and retaliatory proceedings constitute abuse of process.

The disputes arose from the matrimonial relationship between Respondent No. 2 and Dr. Sachin Dubey, who married on 09.12.2023.

Following matrimonial discord, Respondent No. 2 lodged FIR No. 15/2024 at Police Station Mahila Thana, Damoh, alleging offences under Sections 498-A, 294, 323, 506 and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The parents-in-law of Respondent No. 2 challenged that FIR in M.Cr.C. No. 48400/2024, contending that the allegations against them were omnibus and that they were residing separately and were government employees.

Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 lodged FIR No. 16/2025 at Police Station Moti Nagar, District Sagar, under Section 354 IPC against Vinay Kumar Dubey, alleging an incident dated 08.06.2024.

Vinay Kumar Dubey challenged the second FIR in M.Cr.C. No. 4660/2025, asserting that the allegation was an afterthought and had been introduced only after the matrimonial proceedings had commenced.

The respondents opposed quashing, submitting that the dowry case had culminated in a charge-sheet and framing of charges, and that the allegations involved disputed questions of fact unsuitable for determination under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023.

Whether the FIR alleging dowry-related cruelty and allied offences could be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, insofar as it concerned the parents-in-law, where the allegations were general and unsupported by specific overt acts?

Whether FIR No. 16/2025 under Section 354 IPC against Vinay Kumar Dubey was liable to be quashed as mala fide and an abuse of process, in view of the delayed allegation, its omission from the earlier matrimonial complaint, and the surrounding matrimonial litigation?

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

It applied the principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, permitting quashing where the attending circumstances demonstrate that criminal proceedings are mala fide or constitute an abuse of process.

Relying on Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667, Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741, Neelu Chopra v. Bharti, (2009) 10 SCC 184, and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 162, the Court reiterated that general and omnibus allegations against relatives in matrimonial cases, without specific role attribution or material indicating active involvement, do not justify continuation of criminal proceedings.

The Court also recognised that inherent jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly and that disputed questions ordinarily cannot be resolved through a mini-trial; however, unimpeachable material and circumstances unmistakably indicating mala fides may justify interference.

The Court found that the dispute was rooted in matrimonial discord and that the parties had exchanged complaints and counter-complaints before registration of the impugned FIRs.

In relation to FIR No. 15/2024, the allegations against the elderly parents-in-law were general and did not attribute any distinct overt act.

The documents concerning their government employment and official engagements supported the contention that they were not residing with Respondent No. 2 on a regular basis, while the investigation disclosed no independent corroborative material beyond statements of interested witnesses.

Applying the principles against prosecuting relatives on the basis of omnibus allegations, the Court held that continuation of the proceedings against them would amount to abuse of process.

As to FIR No. 16/2025, the alleged Section 354 IPC incident was said to have occurred on 08.06.2024, whereas the earlier matrimonial FIR was registered on 04.09.2024 and contained a detailed account of matrimonial incidents without mentioning any allegation of outraging modesty.

The subsequent registration of the second FIR during the pendency of matrimonial proceedings, coupled with the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the omission and delay, created serious doubt about its bona fides.

The Court therefore concluded that the prosecution appeared to be a retaliatory use of criminal law rather than a bona fide proceeding.

FIR No. 15/2024 and all consequential proceedings were quashed insofar as they related to the petitioning parents-in-law.

FIR No. 16/2025 under Section 354 IPC and all consequential proceedings against Vinay Kumar Dubey were also quashed.

The Court clarified that the order would not affect proceedings against any other accused who were not before it, and directed that such proceedings could continue independently in accordance with law.