Omnibus allegations alone cannot sustain prosecution of relatives for matrimonial cruelty.

The petitioner-husband challenged, in WPCR No. 433 of 2026, the registration of proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, being MJC (Criminal) Case No. 913 of 2026.

In CRMP No. 871 of 2026, the husband and his parents sought quashing of FIR/Crime No. 08 of 2026 registered at Mahila Thana, Durg, for offences under Sections 85 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the consequential criminal proceedings in RCC No. 3753 of 2026.

The marriage between the petitioner-husband and respondent No. 2 was solemnised on 16 April 2025.

The wife alleged that, after marriage, the husband and his parents subjected her to physical and mental cruelty and demanded additional dowry.

Following an unsuccessful counselling process, the FIR was registered and a charge-sheet was filed on 27 January 2026.

The wife also initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act; the JMFC took cognizance against the husband alone.

The petitioners contended that the wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home and that the allegations against the parents were vague, general and omnibus.

1. Whether the FIR, charge-sheet and consequential criminal proceedings for cruelty against the husband and his parents were liable to be quashed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, particularly where the allegations against the parents were general and lacked specific particulars.

2. Whether the High Court should interfere at the threshold with the registration and cognizance of proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, when the complaint disclosed allegations of domestic violence and the petitioner disputed the factual allegations.

The Court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

It relied on the categories formulated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, under which quashing may be ordered where the allegations, taken at face value, do not constitute an offence, where the uncontroverted material fails to disclose an offence, or where the prosecution is manifestly attended with mala fides.

Section 85 of the BNS, corresponding to Section 498-A IPC, penalises cruelty by a husband or his relative, including wilful conduct likely to cause grave injury or harassment intended to coerce fulfilment of an unlawful demand for property or valuable security.

The Court further applied the principles in Geeta Mehrotra, K. Subba Rao, Rashmi Chopra and Kahkashan Kausar, that relatives of a husband should not be prosecuted on the basis of vague, general or omnibus allegations without specific instances of involvement.

Conversely, disputed questions concerning the existence and nature of domestic violence ordinarily cannot be adjudicated in quashing proceedings at the threshold.

The Court held that the FIR and charge-sheet contained only general allegations against the husband’s parents, without specifying particular dates, places, overt acts or distinct roles in the alleged dowry-related cruelty.

Applying the Bhajan Lal categories and the precedents cautioning against mechanically implicating relatives in matrimonial disputes, it found that no prima facie case under Section 85 BNS/Section 498-A IPC was made out against the parents.

The Court therefore quashed the proceedings against them, while declining to extend the relief to the husband because the allegations against him raised matters requiring consideration at trial.

As to the Domestic Violence Act proceedings, the Court distinguished between registration of an application and a finding of guilt.

Since the Magistrate’s cognizance merely set the statutory process in motion and the wife’s allegations disclosed a case requiring adjudication, the husband’s factual defences could be raised before the Magistrate and did not justify extraordinary interference.

The proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act against the husband were permitted to continue, with liberty to raise all permissible objections and defences before the Magistrate.

CRMP No. 871 of 2026 was partly allowed: FIR No. 08 of 2026 and RCC No. 3753 of 2026 were quashed insofar as they related to the husband’s parents, Ishwar Prasad Tiwari and Vanmala Tiwari, for the alleged offence under Section 85 BNS/Section 498-A IPC read with Section 3(5) BNS/Section 34 IPC.

The prosecution against the husband, Shubham Tiwari, was directed to continue in accordance with law.