Prosecution under Section 498A is quashed where allegations against relatives are vague and omnibus.

The complainant, Anita Devi, alleged that she married the son of Petitioner No. 1 in 2011 according to Hindu rites. After marriage, she was allegedly subjected to cruelty by her in-laws for bringing ₹50,000 from her father to establish a grocery shop; her father allegedly paid ₹10,000. She further alleged that, after an initial period of normal treatment, the petitioners regularly tortured her and that Petitioner No. 1 attempted to arrange a second marriage for his son.

The petitioners—comprising the complainant’s father-in-law, mother-in-law, sisters-in-law, brothers-in-law and sister-in-law/Gotani—challenged the order dated 13 August 2014 by which the learned S.D.J.M., Nawada, took cognizance against them for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

They contended that the complaint contained only vague and omnibus allegations, principally directed against the husband. The State and the complainant opposed quashing, asserting that the complaint, the complainant’s solemn-affirmation statement and the enquiry-witness statements disclosed a prima facie case.

1. Whether the order dated 13 August 2014 taking cognizance under Section 498-A IPC against the petitioners should be quashed where the allegations against the husband’s relatives are general, vague and omnibus, without specific overt acts.

2. Whether continuation of the prosecution against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of the court in the circumstances of the case.

The Court applied Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, which penalises cruelty by the husband or his relatives towards a married woman.

In exercising its quashing jurisdiction, the Court relied on the principle that criminal proceedings against the husband’s relatives may be quashed where the allegations are vague, general and omnibus and do not attribute specific overt acts to the individual accused. The Court referred to Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr., (2010) 7 SCC 667; Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 741; Rajesh Sharma & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., (2018) 10 SCC 472; and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599, concerning the improper implication of family members in matrimonial prosecutions based on general and omnibus allegations.

The Court examined the allegations in the complaint and the supporting materials relied upon for taking cognizance. Although the complainant alleged dowry-related cruelty and ill-treatment, the allegations against the petitioners, who were relatives of the husband, were found to be vague and general and did not sufficiently identify individual acts constituting cruelty by each petitioner.

Applying the principles stated in the cited Supreme Court decisions, the Court held that permitting the prosecution to continue against such relatives, in the absence of specific allegations of overt acts, would constitute an abuse of the process of the court.

Proceedings against the other co-accused were expressly permitted to continue.