Omnibus and Vague Allegations Without Specific Instances Cannot Sustain Prosecution Under Section 85 of the BNS

The petitioners, comprising the husband (Petitioner No. 1), father-in-law (Petitioner No. 2), and sister-in-law (Petitioner No. 3), sought the quashing of FIR No. 66/25 registered at Mahila Thana, Durg, for offences under Sections 85 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The marriage was solemnized on 07.06.2024.

The respondent/wife alleged cruelty and dowry demands for a car, JCB machine, and cash.

The petitioners contended that the allegations were vague, omnibus, and a "counter blast" to matrimonial discord; they further noted that the husband and wife resided separately from the other family members in a rented house.

Mediation between the parties had failed.

The Court primarily applied Section 85 (cruelty by husband or relatives) and Section 3(5) (joint liability) of the BNS.

It relied on the landmark principles from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which allow quashing where allegations are so absurd or vague that no case is made out.

It further applied Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, establishing that relatives should not be roped into matrimonial disputes based on "omnibus allegations" without specific involvement.

Finally, it referenced Dara Lakshmi Narayan v. State of Telangana (2024), emphasizing that casual reference to family members in such disputes must be "nipped in the bud" to prevent personal vendetta.

The Court observed that the FIR contained only "vague, general, and motivated" allegations lacking specific dates, times, or incidents.

It noted that Petitioner No. 3 was employed and living independently in Raipur, and Petitioner No. 1 and the respondent lived in a rented accommodation separate from Petitioner No. 2.

The Court reasoned that judicial process should not be converted into an instrument of harassment.

Applying the "Category 7" test from Bhajan Lal, the Court found that the criminal proceeding was likely initiated with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance.

Since the allegations did not meet the essential ingredients of "cruelty" and failed to show domestic proximity of the relatives to the alleged incidents, the prosecution was deemed unjustified.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 66/2025 and all consequential proceedings to prevent the abuse of the process of law.