Omnibus allegations without specific involvement cannot sustain prosecution of a distant matrimonial relative.

Sanju Devi lodged Marhowrrah P.S. Case No. 102 of 2014 alleging offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 and 379 of the IPC against seven members of her matrimonial family, alleging assault, abuse, cruelty and abandonment by her husband after court proceedings.

After investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against four accused, including Kajal Kumari, the husband’s cousin sister-in-law, but found three other accused innocent.

The informant had earlier instituted Complaint Case No. 1980 of 2011 against members of her matrimonial family; cognizance was taken only against her husband, and that case remained pending.

Kajal Kumari challenged the rejection of her application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for discharge, contending that the FIR and case diary contained no specific allegation or evidence against her.

During the pendency of the High Court proceedings, the husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law died; consequently, the petition was dismissed as infructuous qua those accused, and the matter continued only regarding Kajal Kumari.

Whether the prosecution against Kajal Kumari under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 and 379 IPC could continue when the FIR and case diary contained only general and omnibus allegations without attributing any specific role to her?

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order rejecting discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and the consequential criminal proceedings, to prevent abuse of process and miscarriage of justice?

The Court considered Section 239 Cr.P.C., which permits discharge in a warrant case instituted on a police report where the charge is groundless, and Section 482 Cr.P.C., which preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

It examined the alleged offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 and 379 IPC, holding that Section 498-A requires material indicating cruelty of the statutory nature, including cruelty connected with unlawful demand for property or dowry, while the other offences require evidence of the corresponding acts.

Relying on Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar , (2022) 6 SCC 599, and Arti Mehta v. State of Madhya Pradesh , 2026 SCC OnLine SC 933, the Court reiterated that distant relatives in matrimonial prosecutions should not be proceeded against on the basis of vague, omnibus allegations absent specific instances of involvement.

The Court found that the FIR assigned a specific factual allegation only to the husband—namely, that he left the informant at the court premises and thereafter she was allegedly assaulted upon returning to her matrimonial home—but attributed no distinct act to Kajal Kumari.

The statements of the independent witnesses, recorded in the case diary, reproduced substantially the same sweeping allegations against all family members and did not disclose any specific overt act by the petitioner.

The Court also noted that the earlier complaint case had resulted in process being issued only against the husband, and that the police investigation in the present case had produced no material connecting Kajal Kumari with the alleged offences.

In the absence of any allegation of dowry demand or cruelty against her, no case under Section 498-A IPC was made out; Section 379 was likewise unsupported, and the allegations under Sections 323 and 506 IPC lacked the requisite specific factual and evidentiary foundation.

Given her status as a distant relative and the absence of specific allegations, continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of process, particularly after the deaths of the principal matrimonial accused.

It quashed and set aside the order dated 21 June 2016 rejecting the application for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and quashed all criminal proceedings arising from Marhowrrah P.S. Case No. 102 of 2014, corresponding to Trial No. 2069 of 2016, against her.

The proceedings against the other three petitioners had already been dismissed as infructuous following their deaths.