Vague, omnibus allegations against parents-in-law in matrimonial disputes constitute an abuse of process justifying quashment.

Applicant No. 3 (husband) and Respondent No. 2 (wife), both medical professionals, married on 15.02.2023.

Due to higher studies in different cities, cohabitation was limited.

On 03.04.2025, the husband filed for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Subsequently, on 25.09.2025, the wife lodged an FIR at Mahila Thana, Sagar, alleging dowry demand and cruelty under Sections 85, 316(2), 351(2), and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The applicants (husband and parents-in-law) moved the High Court to quash the proceedings, claiming the FIR was a malicious "counterblast" to the matrimonial suit.

1. Whether the allegations against the parents-in-law (Applicants 1 & 2) meet the threshold of specificity required to sustain criminal prosecution.

2. Whether the criminal proceedings against the husband (Applicant 3) constitute an abuse of process warranting quashment under Section 528 BNSS.

The Court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 482 Cr.P.C.) regarding inherent powers to prevent abuse of process.

It relied on Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010) and Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar (2022), which establish that general, omnibus, and sweeping allegations against relatives in matrimonial disputes without specific overt acts justify quashment.

It further referenced Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) regarding the tendency to implicate all family members.

It acknowledged that while "counterblast" FIRs are scrutinized, disputed questions of fact regarding the husband’s conduct must be resolved at trial.

The Court distinguished between the roles of the parents-in-law and the husband. Regarding Applicants 1 and 2, it found the allegations to be "vague and omnibus," lacking specific dates or overt acts.

It noted the wife primarily resided in Delhi for studies and had negligible cohabitation with the parents-in-law, making the claims of daily harassment improbable.

Conversely, the Court found that the allegations against Applicant 3 (husband) disclosed a prima facie case of matrimonial discord and cruelty.

Although the FIR was filed after the husband’s Section 9 petition, the Court held that this "retaliatory action" inference is a matter of evidence that cannot be adjudicated in a quashing petition, as the Court cannot conduct a "roving enquiry" into the truth of the allegations at this stage.

The petition was dismissed regarding Applicant No. 3 (husband), and the trial court was directed to proceed against him in accordance with law.