Omnibus allegations against distantly residing relatives without specific overt acts or entrustment constitute abuse of process.

The petitioners, the married sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the de-facto complainant, sought to quash criminal proceedings in G.R. Case No. 2655 of 2023.

The complainant married the principal accused on 28.10.2022 and alleged that demands for ₹3,00,000/- led to her departure from the matrimonial home in April 2023.

An FIR was lodged six months later, charging the husband and the petitioners under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The petitioners contended they had lived independently in Tangra since 2014, whereas the matrimonial home was in Beniapukur.

Investigation showed all seized articles were recovered from the husband’s home, and the complainant’s own statement admitted her Stridhan was in the father-in-law's exclusive custody.

1. Whether the generic, "omnibus" allegations of "instigation" satisfy the specific overt acts required to constitute "Cruelty" under Section 498A IPC?

2. Whether the petitioners’ decade-long domestic severance and settled professional status render the allegations of daily torture legally improbable?

3. Whether a case under Section 406 IPC is maintainable when the complainant admitted the father-in-law was the sole custodian of the property?

4. Whether the unexplained six-month delay in filing the FIR indicates a malicious intent to "rope in" relatives, constituting an abuse of process?

The Court primarily applied Section 498A (Cruelty), Section 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust), and Section 34 (Common Intention) of the IPC, alongside Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC regarding quashing powers).

Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, which mandates scrutiny of "omnibus" allegations against distant relatives.

Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., which warns against roping in relatives who do not share a household.

Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, requiring proof of "entrustment" and "dominion" over property for Section 406 IPC cases.

State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, specifically focusing on the pillar regarding proceedings instituted with malicious ulterior motives.

The Court found that the allegations against the petitioners were "omnibus" and lacked temporal or factual precision, failing the 498A IPC threshold.

The Court noted that Petitioner No. 2’s professional role at PwC and the couple’s ten-year residence in Tangra made the claim of "daily visits" to Beniapukur to instigate torture logically implausible.

Regarding Section 406 IPC, the Court held that the complainant’s written admission—naming the father-in-law as the exclusive custodian—created a "factual estoppel" that precluded the involvement of the petitioners, especially as no recovery was made from their home.

Under Section 34 IPC, the Court found no "prior meeting of minds" or "synchronized participation," concluding that "matrimonial affinity" was being used as a substitute for criminal intent.

The six-month unexplained delay was viewed as a period of "legal brainstorming" to widen the net of accused persons, falling under the Bhajan Lal category of malicious prosecution.

The Revisional Application was allowed, quashing G.R. Case No. 2655 of 2023 and Charge Sheet No. 09 of 2024 specifically against Moniza Farooquee and Sharik Hossain.

The petitioners were discharged from their bail bonds, while the trial was ordered to proceed only against the husband and parents-in-law.