Omnibus allegations alone warrant quashing 498-A proceedings against a separately residing in-law.

The petitioner, the complainant’s brother-in-law (dewar), sought quashing under Section 482 CrPC of Crime No. 360/2023, registered at Mahila Thana, Bhopal, for offences under Sections 498-A, 506 and 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The complainant alleged that the petitioner and other accused subjected her to cruelty in connection with a dowry demand, including a demand for Rs. 10 lakhs for business; the State and complainant opposed quashing, noting that the charge-sheet had been filed.

The petitioner relied on a leave-and-licence agreement and submitted that he lived separately and that the allegations against him were general and omnibus.

1. Whether the FIR and consequential proceedings against the petitioner disclosed sufficient specific allegations to proceed against him for the charged offences

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash those proceedings against the petitioner

Section 482 CrPC preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice; the judgment also refers to Section 528 BNSS.

Under State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, proceedings may be quashed, among other circumstances, where the allegations and supporting material do not make out an offence or where proceedings are manifestly malicious.

The Court also relied on authorities cautioning against mechanically implicating a spouse’s relatives in matrimonial disputes on the basis of general or omnibus allegations, including Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand and Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P.

Applying the quashing principles, the Court considered the petitioner’s relationship to the complainant, the material indicating that he resided separately, and the general nature of the allegations against him.

It found that no specific allegation was made against the petitioner and that the principal allegations were directed at the complainant’s husband.

The Court therefore distinguished the petitioner’s case from that of the other accused and concluded that continuing proceedings against him was not justified.