Vague and omnibus matrimonial allegations lacking specific acts warrant quashing of prosecution under Sections 498A and 406 IPC.

The petitioners were the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the de facto complainant.

The complainant alleged that, after her marriage to petitioner no. 1 on 19 November 2010, she was subjected to mental and emotional cruelty, taunts concerning dowry and articles brought from her parental home, restrictions on her movements and employment, physical assault, and harassment.

She further alleged that she was driven out of the matrimonial home on 31 May 2016 and that, thereafter, petitioner no. 1 hacked her online accounts and stalked her.

She also alleged that the petitioners retained her belongings and streedhan despite repeated demands for their return.

Petitioner no. 1 had instituted a matrimonial suit for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of adultery and cruelty on 5 October 2018.

The criminal case was instituted thereafter, on 31 July 2019, as Jadavpur Police Station Case No. 264 of 2019 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, giving rise to A.C.G.R. Case No. 3534 of 2019 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Alipore.

The petitioners sought quashing of the criminal proceeding.

Section 498A IPC criminalises cruelty by a husband or his relative, with “cruelty” meaning either wilful conduct likely to drive the woman to suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her physical or mental health, or harassment intended to coerce an unlawful demand for property or valuable security.

The Court also considered the offences under Sections 406 and 34 IPC and the High Court’s power to prevent abuse of process under Section 482 CrPC.

Relying principally on Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Anr., the Court held that vague, sweeping and omnibus allegations lacking particulars of the time, place, manner and individual involvement of the accused cannot sustain a prosecution under Section 498A; merely naming family members in a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations showing active participation, is insufficient.

The Court further relied on G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad and Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand for the principles that matrimonial prosecutions must be scrutinised with care and that criminal proceedings should be quashed where they are motivated by personal vendetta or constitute an abuse of process.

The Court examined the complaint and the materials in the case diary and found the allegations to be general in nature, without sufficiently particularised facts establishing the statutory ingredients of cruelty, criminal breach of trust or common intention against the three petitioners.

The timing of the complaint—after the husband had instituted matrimonial proceedings—also supported the petitioners’ contention that the criminal case was being used as a counterblast.

Applying Dara Lakshmi Narayana, the Court held that allegations concerning dowry-related displeasure, verbal abuse, restrictions, isolated incidents of physical conduct and non-return of belongings, as presented in the complaint, did not provide the concrete and individualised particulars necessary to justify continuation of the prosecution.

In the absence of a prima facie case, continuation of the proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

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 compliance.