Vague and omnibus allegations under Section 498A cannot sustain prosecution against matrimonial relatives.

The informant married co-accused Faiyaz in 2013. She alleged that, after marriage, her husband and his relatives—including the present petitioners, who were her father-in-law, mother-in-law, brothers-in-law and sister-in-law—subjected her to cruelty in connection with demands for cash, a vehicle and a motorcycle.

It was further alleged that her husband assaulted her, demanded ₹1,00,000 and a motorcycle, and that the accused attempted to burn her.

In connection with Kothi P.S. Case No. 18 of 2016, the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sherghati, took cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 498-A and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act by order dated 1 December 2017.

The petitioners sought quashing of the cognizance order, contending that the allegations against them were vague, general and omnibus, without attribution of any specific overt act.

Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was sustainable where the allegations against them were general and omnibus and no specific overt act was attributed to them.

Whether cognizance under Section 379 IPC could be sustained in the absence of material disclosing the commission of an offence of theft.

Whether the cognizance order dated 1 December 2017 was liable to be quashed in exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

The Court considered Sections 498-A and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Section 498-A IPC penalises cruelty by the husband or his relatives, but criminal proceedings against relatives cannot be sustained merely on the basis of vague, general and omnibus allegations unsupported by specific acts.

The Court relied particularly on Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667, and Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083, concerning the impermissibility of continuing proceedings against relatives on such unsubstantiated allegations.

The petitioners also relied on Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741, Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P., (2018) 10 SCC 472, and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599, on the same principle.

The Court further held that the allegations did not disclose an offence under Section 379 IPC.

The Court examined the allegations against the petitioners and found them to be general and omnibus, without any specific overt act attributable to any individual petitioner.

Applying the principles in Preeti Gupta and Abhishek, it held that the mere inclusion of the husband’s relatives in allegations arising from matrimonial discord was insufficient to justify continuation of proceedings under Section 498-A IPC.

The Court also found that the materials did not make out an offence under Section 379 IPC.

Accordingly, the cognizance order, insofar as it related to the petitioners, was unsustainable.

The Court expressly limited its findings to the petitioners’ application and did not adjudicate the merits of the case against the co-accused husband.

The proceedings against the petitioners were consequently terminated.

However, the Court directed that the proceedings against co-accused Faiyaz continue.

It further clarified that its observations would not prejudice either party in any pending proceeding before another forum.