Specific allegations against husband sustain prosecution, while general, omnibus allegations against distant relatives warrant quashment.

The applicants (the husband, sister-in-law, and maternal uncle-in-law) sought the quashing of FIR Crime No. 0415/2024 and subsequent trial proceedings for offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 506, and 34 of the IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The complainant alleged she was harassed for a four-wheeler and ₹10,00,000, physically assaulted by applicant No. 1, and forcibly ousted from her matrimonial home on 29.03.2024.

Regarding applicant Nos. 2 and 3, the FIR alleged general acts of taunting and instigation.

A charge-sheet was filed on 07.09.2024.

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR and charge-sheet disclose a prima facie case against the husband (Applicant No. 1) to warrant trial.

2. Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings against the distant relatives (Applicant Nos. 2 and 3) based on general and omnibus allegations constitutes an abuse of the process of law.

The court exercised its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

While specific allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment attract Section 498-A and 406 of the IPC, "general and omnibus" allegations against distant relatives are insufficient for prosecution.

The court cited Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010), Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar (2022), Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014), and Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. (2012) to emphasize that matrimonial laws should not be misused to implicate a husband’s extended family members without specific, credible evidence.

The court distinguished the roles of the applicants, noting that specific and detailed allegations of physical assault, dowry demands, and retention of jewellery were directed at applicant No. 1 (husband), satisfying the prima facie requirements for trial.

Conversely, the court found that applicant Nos. 2 and 3 lived separately and were only subject to vague allegations of "taunting" without specific dates or overt acts of grave cruelty.

Applying the precedent from Kahkashan Kausar, the court reasoned that including these relatives, who were not part of the immediate matrimonial unit, appeared to be an attempt to over-implicate the husband's family, which amounts to an abuse of the judicial process.

The court partly allowed the application and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings, including Regular Criminal Trial No. 506/2024, in respect of applicant No. 2 (Swati Yadav) and applicant No. 3 (Nano @ Chandrakishore Yadav) due to the lack of specific allegations.