Retaliatory FIR with vague and omnibus allegations following matrimonial proceedings constitutes an abuse of process.

The petitioner (husband) sought quashment of FIR No. 06/2024 registered at Mahila Thana, Guna, alleging offenses under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The marriage occurred on 02.03.2019.

The complainant alleged that after six months of marriage, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty for a demand of ₹1,00,000 and a four-wheeler.

She further alleged specific instances of assault in July and November 2023 before returning to her parental home.

The petitioner contended that the FIR was a retaliatory "counterblast" to his prior filing of a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, in which the respondent failed to appear despite service of notice.

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR are vague and omnibus in nature, failing to constitute a prima facie case under Section 498-A IPC.

2. Whether the criminal proceedings were initiated with mala fide intent as a retaliatory measure for the petitioner’s matrimonial litigation, justifying quashment under Section 528 of the BNSS.

The Court primarily exercised its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (formerly Section 482 CrPC), to prevent the abuse of the process of law.

It relied on the landmark precedent *State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604)*, which permits quashing proceedings that are manifestly attended with mala fide or instituted for wreaking vengeance.

Furthermore, it applied the principles from *Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar [(2022) 6 SCC 599]*, holding that courts must guard against the misuse of criminal machinery in matrimonial disputes where allegations are vague, omnibus, and lack specific particulars.

The Court observed that the marriage subsisted for a significant period and a child was born without any prior complaints of harassment recorded during cohabitation.

A critical factor was the timeline: the petitioner had already initiated Section 9 proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights, and the respondent only filed the FIR after failing to contest those proceedings.

Upon examination of the FIR, the Court found the allegations to be "general and omnibus," lacking specific details regarding the time, place, and manner of the alleged cruelty.

The Court reasoned that the dispute appeared to be a result of matrimonial discord rather than criminal conduct, and that allowing the prosecution to continue would constitute an abuse of the judicial process, as the criminal law was being used as a tool for "retaliatory measures."

Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 06/2024 (Mahila Thana, Guna) along with all consequential proceedings initiated thereunder against the petitioner.