Vague and omnibus allegations against in-laws cannot sustain prosecution under Section 498A IPC.

The petitioners—petitioners 1 and 2 being the mother-in-law and father-in-law, and petitioner 3 being the brother-in-law of the opposite party no. 2—sought quashing of proceedings in C.G.R. No. 5356 of 2016 arising from Gariahat Police Station Case No. 204 of 2016 under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”).

The complainant alleged that, following her marriage on 23 December 2002, she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty in connection with dowry demands.

The complaint was lodged approximately fourteen years after the marriage.

The complainant and her children had also lived in Australia with her husband, and the parties travelled to Nepal in June 2016.

In 2017, the parties entered into an agreement and executed a memorandum of understanding.

Following an alleged breach by the husband, the complainant requested continuation of the criminal case, which ultimately resulted in a final report dated 4 April 2018.

The husband was not impleaded as a petitioner in the revision, and the Court examined the case against the petitioners who were the in-laws.

Whether the allegations and materials in the case diary disclosed the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC against the petitioners?

Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law warranting exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction?

The Court applied Section 498A IPC, which criminalises cruelty by a husband or his relative and defines cruelty to include wilful conduct likely to cause grave injury or danger to the woman’s life, limb or health, or harassment intended to coerce her or her relatives to meet an unlawful demand for property or valuable security.

The Court relied on Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Anr., which cautions that vague and omnibus allegations against the husband’s family, without specific particulars of time, place, manner or active involvement, cannot ordinarily sustain prosecution under Section 498A.

It also referred to G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693, and Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667, concerning the need for caution and circumspection in matrimonial prosecutions.

Under State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, proceedings may be quashed where the allegations, even if accepted at face value, do not constitute an offence, where the collected material does not disclose an offence, or where the prosecution is manifestly attended with mala fides or an ulterior motive.

The Court examined the complaint and the case diary and found that the allegations against the petitioners were general and lacked specific particulars establishing their individual participation in acts constituting cruelty under Section 498A IPC.

Although the complaint referred broadly to mental and physical cruelty and alleged misappropriation of articles, the materials did not prima facie demonstrate conduct by these petitioners falling within either limb of the statutory definition of cruelty.

The Court treated the petitioners as relatives of the husband who had been implicated without concrete, particularised allegations of active involvement.

Applying the principles in Dara Lakshmi Narayana, Preeti Gupta and Bhajan Lal, it held that permitting the prosecution to continue would constitute an abuse of the process of law.

It allowed CRR 747 of 2024 and quashed C.G.R. No. 5356 of 2016, arising from Gariahat Police Station Case No. 204 of 2016 under Sections 498A/34 IPC, insofar as it concerned Kiran Ravi Wankhede, Ravi Harish Wankhede and Goutam Ravi Wankhede.

Connected applications were disposed of, any interim order was vacated, and a copy of the judgment was directed to be sent to the Trial Court for necessary compliance.