Vague, omnibus allegations and initiation of proceedings post-divorce constitute abuse of process, warranting quashing.

The Petitioner No. 1 (husband) and Respondent (wife) married on January 25, 2005.

The Respondent stayed at the matrimonial home in Ranikhet for only brief intervals, citing difficulty adjusting to village life

Following continuous separation since 2007, the Petitioner No. 1 obtained an ex-parte decree of divorce from a Court in Almora, Uttarakhand, on September 5, 2012

After the divorce decree, the Respondent filed a Domestic Violence (DV) complaint and an FIR (No. 252/2013) under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC at P.S. KN Katju Marg, Delhi

The Petitioners sought quashing of both the DV complaint and the FIR, contending they were maliciously filed as an afterthought

The court relied on Section 498A IPC, which requires "cruelty" to be of such a nature as to drive a woman to suicide or meet unlawful property demands

Section 406 IPC regarding criminal breach of trust, requiring proof of entrustment and dishonest misappropriation

It applied the "domestic relationship" definition under Section 2(f) of the DV Act

Legally, it followed the precedent in *State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal*, allowing quashing where proceedings are maliciously instituted

and *Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda v. State of Gujarat* regarding the misuse of Section 498A

It further cited *Kuldeep Kaur v. Swaran Kaur*, holding that a domestic relationship ends upon a valid divorce decree

Regarding the IPC offences, the Court found the Respondent’s allegations to be "vague, omnibus, and devoid of specific instances"

It noted that ordinary matrimonial discord or a lack of adjustment does not constitute "cruelty" under Section 498A

For the Section 406 charge, the Court observed a total lack of particulars regarding the description or quantity of *stridhan* and no evidence of entrustment, as the Respondent lived primarily at her parental home

Regarding the DV Act, the Court reasoned that since the marriage was dissolved on September 5, 2012, and the complaint was filed subsequently in 2013, the "foundational requirement" of a subsisting domestic relationship was absent

The Court characterized the litigation as a retaliatory and "malicious" attempt to harass the Petitioners following the Petitioner No. 1's successful divorce decree

It held that the continuation of the proceedings would constitute a gross abuse of the process of law

Consequently, the Court allowed both petitions, quashing FIR No. 252/2013 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and Complaint Case No. 494/2016 under the DV Act, along with all consequential proceedings