Vague and omnibus allegations warrant quashing DV Act proceedings against in-laws.

J. Swati filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, alleging that her husband, Krishna (accused No. 1), and his relatives (accused Nos. 2–5) harassed her over dowry and evicted her from the matrimonial home.

The husband and his relatives separately petitioned under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to quash the proceedings in Criminal Misc. No. 6/2023, which concerned reliefs under Sections 18–22 of the DV Act.

The relatives argued that the allegations against them were general and unsupported by specific assertions; Swati opposed quashing, maintaining that the allegations disclosed a prima facie case.

Whether the proceedings under the DV Act against accused Nos. 2–5 should be quashed for want of specific allegations and as an abuse of process.

Whether the proceedings against accused No. 1 should be quashed despite the specific allegations against him.

The application before the Magistrate was brought under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which enables an aggrieved person to seek relief under the Act; the reliefs sought concerned Sections 18–22.

The petitioners invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The Court applied the principle that proceedings may be quashed where the allegations against particular respondents are not specific and continuation would amount to an abuse of process.

The Court found no specific allegations against accused Nos. 2–5 and considered the allegations to be directed principally at accused No. 1.

It also noted that Swati filed the application after learning that accused No. 1 had filed for divorce, and inferred that the relatives had been implicated to exert pressure.

On that basis, it concluded that continuing the proceedings against accused Nos. 2–5 would amount to an abuse of process.

By contrast, the Court held that a specific allegation existed against accused No. 1, so his petition could not be allowed.

It also directed accused No. 1 to pay arrears of interim maintenance to Swati.