Vague, omnibus allegations against a husband’s relative, without specific involvement, warrant quashing of prosecution.

The petitioner sought quashing of G.R. Case No. 2898 of 2022, arising from Narendrapur Police Station Case No. 429 of 2022 dated 4 May 2022, registered under Sections 498A, 406 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code and pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Baruipur.

The de facto complainant was the petitioner’s sister-in-law, being married to the petitioner’s brother. The petitioner contended that he had no connection with the complainant’s matrimonial life since her marriage.

The Court examined the written complaint, the case diary and the complainant’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Although the complaint contained serious allegations, they were primarily directed against the complainant’s husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law.

The Section 164 statement did not refer to the petitioner.

Whether the allegations and materials in the case diary disclosed the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 365 IPC against the petitioner?

Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, in the absence of specific and particularised allegations against him, would amount to an abuse of the process of law warranting quashing?

Section 498A IPC criminalises cruelty by a husband or a relative of the husband and requires proof of wilful conduct likely to drive the woman to suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, or harassment connected with an unlawful demand for property or valuable security.

The Court relied on Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana & Anr., which held that vague and omnibus allegations against relatives, without specific details of their active involvement, cannot ordinarily sustain criminal prosecution and that courts should prevent misuse of Section 498A IPC.

It also relied on G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad, concerning the need to prevent matrimonial disputes from unnecessarily implicating family members, and Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, which requires complaints against relatives living separately or having limited involvement in the matrimonial home to be scrutinised with care.

The Court further applied the illustrative principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, particularly the category concerning proceedings instituted with ulterior motive or where continuation would constitute abuse of process.

The Court found that the allegations in the written complaint were general in nature and substantially directed against the complainant’s husband and in-laws, rather than the petitioner.

The complainant’s Section 164 CrPC statement contained no reference to the petitioner, materially weakening the allegation of his involvement.

Applying the requirement of specific conduct under Section 498A IPC and the principles in Dara Lakshmi Narayana, G.V. Rao and Preeti Gupta, the Court held that the petitioner had not been attributed any particular act constituting cruelty, misappropriation or abduction.

The case diary therefore did not disclose the necessary ingredients of the offences against him.

In these circumstances, permitting the prosecution to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

The proceedings in G.R. Case No. 2898 of 2022, arising from Narendrapur Police Station Case No. 429 of 2022 under Sections 498A, 406 and 365 IPC, were quashed insofar as they related to Kaustov Bhattacharya.

All 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 necessary compliance.