Vague, omnibus allegations against in-laws warrant quashing; specific allegations against the husband may proceed.

The petitioners invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet and consequential criminal proceedings arising from Crime No. 56/2025 registered at Harda Mahila Police Station for offences under Sections 85, 3(5) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Petitioner No. 3, S. Shrinivas, was the husband of respondent No. 2, Harshita Prajapati; the remaining petitioners were his father, mother and sister. The marriage was solemnised on 27 November 2023.

The petitioners contended that the husband and wife had been residing separately in a rented house and that the allegations against the father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law were vague, general and omnibus.

They also asserted that the FIR was lodged as a counterblast after the husband instituted divorce proceedings and that there had been prior disputes and complaints between the parties.

Whether the FIR, charge-sheet and consequential criminal proceedings against the father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law should be quashed where the allegations against them were vague, general and omnibus and the spouses were residing separately?

Whether the criminal proceedings against the husband should be quashed merely because he had instituted divorce proceedings against the complainant and alleged that the FIR was a counterblast?

The Court applied the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS to prevent abuse of the process of court and secure the ends of justice, while recognising that quashing is not warranted where the allegations prima facie disclose a criminal offence.

The alleged offences were under Sections 85, 3(5) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The Court relied on Y. Sham Kumar v. State of A.P., and Smt. Chand Dhawan v. Jawahr Lal, 1992 AIR 1379, for the principle that a complaint should not be quashed when its allegations prima facie constitute an offence and there is no material showing abuse of process or failure of justice.

It further relied on Pratibha v. Rameshwari Devi, 2007 AIR SCW 5933, for the rule that the institution or pendency of divorce or other civil proceedings does not by itself terminate or justify quashing independent criminal proceedings arising from the same facts.

The Court distinguished between the relatives and the husband. As to petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 4, it found that the spouses had been living separately in a rented house and that the FIR and accompanying statements did not contain specific allegations against the father-in-law, mother-in-law or sister-in-law.

The allegations against them were therefore vague, general and omnibus, warranting exercise of the inherent jurisdiction to prevent continuation of the proceedings.

In contrast, the husband faced specific allegations concerning dowry demand and harassment. The Court held that his filing of a divorce petition, or the contention that the criminal case was a counterblast, did not constitute a legally sufficient ground for quashing the prosecution.

Applying the principles in Chand Dhawan and Pratibha, the Court held that the prima facie allegations against the husband required the criminal proceedings to continue and that disputed factual defences could not justify quashing at this stage.

The prayer for quashing was rejected as against petitioner No. 3, S. Shrinivas Prajapati, and the criminal proceedings against him were permitted to continue in view of the specific allegations of dowry demand and harassment.