QUASHING OF CROSS-FIRS FILED AS RETALIATORY COUNTERBLASTS IN OMNIBUS MATRIMONIAL DISPUTES TO PREVENT ABUSE OF PROCESS.

The parties, Saket Sharma (husband) and Aanchal Sharma (wife), married on June 7, 2023, but soon developed extreme matrimonial discord

Previous criminal proceedings (FIR No. 487/2023) against the husband ended in acquittal via compromise in June 2025

Following the husband’s filing for divorce on February 2, 2026, an altercation occurred on February 6, 2026, leading to the registration of cross-FIRs (No. 53/2026 by the wife and No. 54/2026 by the husband) under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

Mediation between the parties failed on April 6, 2026

Both parties petitioned the High Court to quash the respective FIRs lodged against them, alleging that the complaints were malicious retaliatory measures lacking specific overt acts

1. Whether the impugned FIRs disclose the commission of any cognizable offence or are merely "omnibus" and vague in nature

2. Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings arising out of mutual matrimonial discord constitutes an abuse of the process of law

3. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to quash the proceedings

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which preserves the High Court's inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice (equivalent to Section 482 CrPC).

The Court relied on the established principle that criminal proceedings manifestly attended with mala fide or instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance are liable to be quashed.

It further observed that for a valid prosecution, allegations must prima facie constitute the ingredients of a cognizable offence rather than consisting of vague, general, or omnibus statements.

The Court observed that both FIRs emanated from the same incident and were essentially "versions and counter-versions" of a long-standing matrimonial dispute rather than independent criminal acts

It reasoned that the timing of the FIRs—lodged on the same day following the initiation of divorce proceedings—indicated they were used as "instruments of harassment" and "counterblasts" to settle personal scores

Upon examining the material, the Court found the allegations to be exaggerated and bereft of specific particulars regarding the roles of the accused

The Court concluded that the possibility of conviction was "remote and bleak" because the allegations, even if taken at face value, were inherently improbable in the context of the estranged relationship

Consequently, the High Court allowed both petitions and quashed FIR No. 53/2026 and FIR No. 54/2026 (P.S. Kanker), along with all consequential proceedings, to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice