Vague and omnibus dowry allegations without specific overt acts against relatives warrant quashing of 498A proceedings.

The complainant, Sushila Singh, alleged that she married petitioner No. 1, Vijay Singh @ Vijay Kumar, on 27 May 2011 and was initially treated peacefully in her matrimonial home.

She alleged that thereafter she was subjected to cruelty and dowry demands, particularly for a Nano car and a gold chain, and was ousted from the matrimonial home for non-fulfilment of those demands.

Petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 were the complainant’s brother-in-law, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law, respectively.

The A.C.J.M., Bhojpur, Ara, took cognizance of offences under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case No. 377(C) of 2016 by order dated 2 May 2016.

The petition was earlier permitted to be withdrawn insofar as it concerned petitioner No. 1, the complainant’s husband.

The remaining petitioners sought quashing of the proceedings on the ground that the allegations against them were vague, general and omnibus.

1. Whether criminal proceedings under Sections 498A/34 IPC against the complainant’s relatives could be quashed where the allegations against them were general, vague and omnibus and did not attribute any specific overt act.

2. Whether the order dated 2 May 2016 taking cognizance against petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 constituted an abuse of the process of the court in the circumstances of the case.

The Court applied Sections 498A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, concerning cruelty by the husband or his relatives and acts done in furtherance of common intention.

It relied on Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand , (2010) 7 SCC 667; Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. , (2012) 10 SCC 741; Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P. , (2018) 10 SCC 472; Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar , (2022) 6 SCC 599; and Abhishek v. State of M.P. , (2023) 16 SCC 666.

These authorities establish that where allegations under Section 498A IPC against the husband’s relatives are vague, general and omnibus, without specific allegations of an overt act, continuation of the criminal proceedings may amount to an abuse of the process of the court warranting quashing.

The Court examined the complaint and found that the allegations against petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 were general and omnibus, without identifying specific acts of cruelty or dowry-related conduct attributable to each petitioner.

Although the complainant alleged that the family members had actively participated in the offence and that her parents-in-law advised the husband to demand dowry and torture her, the Court held that such assertions did not overcome the absence of specific and particularised overt acts.

Applying the principles in Preeti Gupta , Kahkashan Kausar and Abhishek , the Court concluded that continuation of the proceedings against the relatives would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.

The order dated 2 May 2016 taking cognizance under Sections 498A/34 IPC was quashed insofar as it concerned petitioner Nos. 2 to 5—Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Singh, Ramnath Singh, Sugamani Devi and Pratibha Devi @ Pratibha Kumari.

Proceedings against petitioner No. 1, Vijay Singh @ Vijay Kumar, the complainant’s husband, were permitted to continue and were expressly left unaffected by the Court’s observations.