Prosecution against an employed sister-in-law cannot continue on general, omnibus allegations without a specific role.

Opposite Party No. 2 filed Complaint Case No. 427C of 2021 alleging cruelty and other matrimonial offences against the petitioner and her husband’s family members under Sections 323, 341, 504 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The petitioner was the complainant’s unmarried sister-in-law and was employed with TCS, having been posted at Trivandrum and subsequently Hyderabad.

The Magistrate initially declined to take cognizance against the petitioner on 26 March 2021.

In revision, the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Begusarai set aside that order on 31 January 2023 and remitted the matter to the Magistrate for a fresh decision, observing that no reason had been recorded for excluding the petitioner from the cognizance order.

Thereafter, on 13 December 2023, the Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 323, 341, 504 and 498A IPC and issued summons.

The petitioner challenged both the revisional order dated 31 January 2023 and the subsequent cognizance order dated 13 December 2023, contending that the allegations against her were general, omnibus and unsupported by any specific date, time, act or occasion.

Whether the revisional order dated 31 January 2023, setting aside the Magistrate’s earlier refusal to take cognizance against the petitioner and remitting the matter for fresh consideration, was sustainable in law?

Whether the cognizance order dated 13 December 2023 under Sections 323, 341, 504 and 498A IPC could be sustained against the petitioner when the complaint and inquiry statements contained only general and omnibus allegations without attributing any specific act or time to her?

The Court considered Sections 323, 341, 504 and 498A IPC, particularly the requirement that allegations must disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences and, for Section 498A, constitute legally recognised cruelty.

It applied the principle in Geeta Mehrotra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 10 SCC 741, that a casual reference to relatives in a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations of active involvement, does not justify continuation of criminal proceedings.

It further relied on Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599, holding that general and omnibus allegations against relatives, absent a specific role, should not force them to undergo the rigours of trial.

The Court also relied on Geddam Jhansi v. State of Telangana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 263, which requires courts to exercise caution before criminalising domestic disputes and to permit prosecution only where specific acts, supported by credible material, prima facie constitute an offence.

The Court invoked its inherent jurisdiction to prevent continuation of an unjustified criminal prosecution.

The Court examined the complaint, the complainant’s solemn affirmation and the statements of the inquiry witnesses.

The complainant had referred to the petitioner only once, stating generally that her TCS-employed sister-in-law used to torture her while she was living at Kolkata.

The inquiry witnesses likewise named the petitioner only in general terms, stating that the accused persons used to trouble the complainant, without identifying any specific incident, date, time or overt act attributable to the petitioner.

Considering that the petitioner was an unmarried sister-in-law, was employed away from the matrimonial home and was not shown to have participated in the complainant’s day-to-day matrimonial affairs, the Court held that the allegations were merely casual and omnibus.

The alleged conduct was also not shown to satisfy the statutory conception of cruelty under Section 498A IPC.

Applying the principles in Geeta Mehrotra, Kahkashan Kausar and Geddam Jhansi, the Court concluded that continuation of the prosecution would unjustly subject the petitioner to the rigours of criminal trial despite the absence of a specific prima facie case.

It therefore found no justification for continuing the prosecution against her.

The order dated 31 January 2023 passed in Criminal Revision No. 134 of 2021 and the cognizance order dated 13 December 2023 in Complaint Case No. 427C of 2021 were quashed insofar as they concerned the petitioner.

The criminal miscellaneous application was accordingly allowed.