Vague matrimonial allegations and settlement justify quashing proceedings where conviction is bleak.

The deceased married Petitioner No. 1 on 29 April 2021 and thereafter resided with him in Mysore and Ahmedabad.

The FIR alleged that Petitioner No. 1 demanded money and subjected her to physical and mental cruelty, while Petitioners Nos. 2 to 4—her father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law—instigated him and demanded further dowry.

The deceased died by suicide on 11 September 2022, leading to registration of FIR No. 11191044220343 of 2022 at Ghatlodia Police Station, Ahmedabad, for offences under Sections 498A, 306 and 114 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings, contending that the allegations were vague and omnibus and that Petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 resided in Bihar and had no specific involvement.

Although the charge-sheet had been filed, the trial had not commenced.

The complainant also filed an affidavit stating that the parties had settled the matter and that he did not wish to proceed.

1. Whether the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings disclosed a prima facie case under Sections 498A, 306 and 114 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners, particularly in the absence of specific dates, acts or particulars of cruelty?

2. Whether continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law when the allegations were general and omnibus, the complainant had settled the matter, and the prospects of conviction were bleak?

The Court considered Sections 498A, 306 and 114 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

It applied the principle that vague and omnibus allegations against the husband’s relatives, without specific instances of involvement, are insufficient to sustain matrimonial criminal proceedings, as recognised in Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599.

The Court also relied on Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692, which holds that while considering quashing at the initial stage, the court must examine whether the uncontroverted allegations prima facie establish the offence and may quash proceedings where the chances of conviction are bleak and continuation would serve no useful purpose.

The principles in Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P., Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. and K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana were relied upon concerning misuse of Section 498A and the need for caution before prosecuting distant relatives on the basis of general allegations.

The Court found that the FIR attributed only a general allegation that Petitioner No. 1 tortured the deceased at the instigation of Petitioners Nos. 2 to 4.

No specific date, time, overt act or particulars of physical cruelty were disclosed against the petitioners.

Although a demand of ₹25 lakhs was alleged against the husband, the charge-sheet papers did not establish how or in what manner physical cruelty had been inflicted.

The allegations against the relatives were particularly insufficient because Petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 resided in Bihar and were not alleged to have visited Ahmedabad or directly participated in the alleged acts.

Further, the complainant’s affidavit recording settlement and his unwillingness to pursue the case, together with the earlier quashing of proceedings against the other accused, made the prospect of conviction bleak.

The Court therefore held that requiring the petitioners to face trial would be futile and would amount to abuse of the process of law.

The petition was allowed, and FIR No. 11191044220343 of 2022 dated 13 September 2022 registered at Ghatlodia Police Station, Ahmedabad, for offences under Sections 498A, 306 and 114 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, along with all consequential proceedings, was quashed and set aside.

Rule was made absolute accordingly.