Patna HC Quashes Dowry-Cruelty Prosecution Against Over-70 In-Laws, Citing Omnibus Claims And Six-Year Delay After Wife Began Living At Parental Home

Opposite Party No. 2 alleged that, after her marriage in 2014, her husband and his family demanded ₹5 lakh as dowry and subjected her to abuse and assault.

She stated that she had lived at her parental home with her daughter since 30 May 2014.

In 2020, she filed a complaint; the Magistrate took cognizance under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Her mother-in-law and father-in-law, both over 70, sought to quash the cognizance order, arguing that the allegations against them were general and omnibus.

The complainant opposed the application

Section 498A IPC criminalises specified forms of cruelty by a husband or his relatives, while Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act addresses the demand for dowry.

In considering whether proceedings should continue, the Court relied on the principle that general and omnibus allegations, without a specific role attributed to a relative of the husband, may not justify subjecting that relative to a criminal trial in a matrimonial dispute.

It cited Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667; Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599; and Dara Laxmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735

The Court found that the allegations against the petitioners, the complainant’s in-laws, were general and did not assign them a specific role.

The complainant’s statement indicated that she had lived at her parental home since May 2014 and that most of her allegations concerned her husband.

The complaint was filed in 2020, and the Court noted that no complaint or sanha had been lodged during the intervening period.

In light of these circumstances and the Supreme Court’s caution against prosecution of relatives on omnibus allegations, the Court concluded that continuing the case against the petitioners would constitute an abuse of process