Omnibus allegations against separately residing relatives, without specific overt acts, warrant quashing proceedings.

The petitioners sought to quash the complaint, FIR No. 75/2021 and proceedings in C.C. No. 27/2022, arising from allegations under Sections 498A, 504, 506 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The complainant alleged dowry demands and harassment by her husband and his relatives.

Petitioners 2–6 were relatives of petitioner 1; the record indicated they lived separately from the couple.

The police investigated and filed a charge sheet.

Petitioner 1 sought permission to withdraw his petition and pursue available remedies; the Court considered the merits only as to petitioners 2–6.

Whether the proceedings against petitioners 2–6 should be quashed where the allegations against them were omnibus, lacked specific overt acts, and they did not share a household with the couple.

Whether petitioner 1’s petition should be dismissed following his request to withdraw it, with liberty to pursue available defences.

The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which empower the High Court to quash criminal proceedings where their continuation would amount to an abuse of process.

The Court applied the principle in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599: general and omnibus allegations against relatives, without specific allegations of their involvement, may warrant quashing, particularly where they did not share a common household with the couple.

The alleged offences were under Sections 498A, 504, 506 and 149 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The Court noted that petitioners 2–6 were relatives of petitioner 1 and lived separately from the couple.

Although the complaint alleged dowry demands and harassment, the charge sheet contained no supporting material of actual physical assault, and the allegations against petitioners 2–6 were omnibus and lacked specific overt acts.

Applying Kahkashan Kausar, the Court concluded that continuing the prosecution against these petitioners would amount to an abuse of process.

Petitioner 1’s request to withdraw was accepted, without determination of the merits of the allegations against him.

It was allowed as against petitioners 2–6, and the proceedings in C.C. No. 27/2022 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Turuvekere, were quashed insofar as they concerned those petitioners.