Quashing of general and omnibus allegations against distant and non-resident relatives in matrimonial disputes.

The petitioners (husband, mother-in-law, and married sister-in-law) sought the quashing of FIR No. 748/2023 registered at P.S. Gorakhpur, Jabalpur, for offences under Sections 294, 323, 506, and 34 of the IPC.

The marriage was solemnized on 18.05.2022, following which the husband alleged abnormal behavior by the wife.

Conversely, the wife (Respondent No. 2) alleged she was subjected to physical assault for unlawful demands and that the husband maintained an extramarital relationship.

Petitioner No. 3 (sister-in-law) is a resident of Abu Dhabi.

The petitioners argued the FIR was a misuse of criminal law arising from matrimonial discord, while the State argued that the evidence prima facie disclosed cognizable offences.

1. Whether the High Court, in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, can quash an FIR when there are specific allegations of assault and intimidation against the husband.

2. Whether criminal proceedings should continue against relatives of the husband when the allegations are general, omnibus, and lack specific overt acts.

The court applied Section 482 of the CrPC regarding the quashing of criminal proceedings to prevent the abuse of the process of law.

It relied on the "rarest of rare" test from Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, stating that while the court cannot conduct a mini-trial, it may interfere if allegations are patently absurd.

The court applied the principles from Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, which collectively hold that general and omnibus allegations against relatives in matrimonial disputes without specific roles do not justify prosecution.

It also cited Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Angre regarding quashing where chances of conviction are bleak.

Regarding Petitioner No. 1 (husband), the court found that the FIR contained specific allegations of assault and cruelty; therefore, the defenses raised—such as lack of physical relations or contradictions in medical reports—are disputed questions of fact that must be adjudicated at trial.

Conversely, for Petitioner Nos. 2 (mother-in-law) and 3 (sister-in-law), the court observed that the allegations were purely general and omnibus.

Given that Petitioner No. 3 resided in Abu Dhabi and no specific overt acts were attributed to either relative, the court reasoned that their implication was based solely on their relationship with the husband, constituting an abuse of process.

It quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings against Petitioner No. 2 (Sandhya Ninoria) and Petitioner No. 3 (Soumya Ninoria), holding that their prosecution lacked specific evidence of involvement.

The petition was dismissed regarding Petitioner No. 1 (Shobhit Ninoria), as the allegations against him established a prima facie case requiring trial.