Proceedings against a separately residing sister-in-law were quashed for want of specific allegations.

The petitioners sought quashing under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS of an FIR registered as Crime No. 326/2023 under Sections 498A/34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and the consequential proceedings in RCT No. 02/2024.

Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were the complainant’s father-in-law and mother-in-law; Petitioner No. 3 was her sister-in-law (jethani).

The petitioners contended that the allegations against Petitioner No. 3 were general, that she lived separately, and that there were no specific allegations against the petitioners.

The complainant and the State opposed the petition, asserting that the FIR and statements contained specific allegations of dowry demand and harassment.

1. Whether the FIR and consequential proceedings disclosed sufficient allegations of dowry demand and harassment to proceed against Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2.

2. Whether the FIR and consequential proceedings should be quashed against Petitioner No. 3, given her separate residence and the absence of specific allegations against her.

The Court considered its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS and the offences alleged under Sections 498A/34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Applying State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, it considered the illustrative grounds for quashing, including whether the allegations, taken at face value, disclose an offence or whether the proceedings are an abuse of process.

The Court also referred to Kamlesh Kalra v. Shilpika Kalra, Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand and Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. concerning scrutiny of matrimonial-cruelty allegations and the risk of implicating relatives without adequate specific allegations.

The Court distinguished the authorities relied on by the petitioners because the record contained specific allegations against Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 concerning dowry demand and harassment; it therefore found no basis to quash proceedings against them.

Petitioner No. 3’s case was different: she was the complainant’s jethani, had produced her SAMGRA ID to establish that she resided separately, and was not subject to specific allegations. The Court accordingly found the case against her distinguishable and appropriate for quashing under its inherent jurisdiction.

It was allowed as to Petitioner No. 3, Pawan Anjani @ Rohani Yadav, and the FIR and consequential proceedings against her were quashed. The petition was therefore partly allowed.