Omnibus allegations against elderly in-laws without specific overt acts constitute abuse of process justifying quashing.

The petitioners (husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law) sought quashing of FIR Crime No. 733/2020 registered at P.S. Budhar for offences under Sections 498-A, 294, 323, 34 of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Respondent No. 2 (complainant) alleged that after her marriage to Petitioner No. 1 in 2019, the petitioners harassed her for a demand of ₹10,00,000 and pressured her to surrender funds belonging to her daughter from a previous marriage.

During proceedings, Petitioner No. 2 (father-in-law) died, and his name was deleted.

Petitioner No. 3 (mother-in-law) contended she was an elderly lady suffering from ailments and that the complainant was using "tactics" previously employed against a former husband to extort money.

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute a prima facie case against Petitioner No. 3 (mother-in-law) or if they amount to an abuse of the process of law.

2. Whether the criminal proceedings against the husband (Petitioner No. 1) should be quashed despite specific allegations of physical assault and dowry demand.

The court primarily applied Section 482 of the CrPC regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of process.

It relied on the landmark principles in *State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal*, which established categories for quashing FIRs, including cases where allegations are absurd or maliciously instituted.

The court further applied the cautions regarding matrimonial litigation from *Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar*.

The court also considered *Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar*, noting the tendency to implicate all relatives in dowry cases.

It also cited *Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand* regarding the need to scrutinize allegations against close relations living separately or without specific roles.

Regarding Petitioner No. 1 (husband), the court found specific, detailed allegations of a cognizable offence, including a specific incident on 18.08.2020 where the complainant was allegedly assaulted, supported by medical evidence.

However, regarding Petitioner No. 3 (mother-in-law), the court observed that no specific allegations were made out against her.

The court determined that her inclusion was a "pressure tactic" and part of a "general omnibus" tendency to implicate the husband’s entire family due to personal grudges.

Consequently, the court found the proceedings against Petitioner No. 3 to be maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive.

It quashed FIR Crime No. 733/2020 and its consequential proceedings specifically as they related to Petitioner No. 3 (Smt. Pavitra), holding that no prima facie case was established against her.

However, the court dismissed the petition regarding Petitioner No. 1, directing that the trial against the husband shall continue due to the specific nature of the allegations and corroborating medical evidence.