Vague, omnibus allegations cannot sustain DV Act proceedings against separately residing relatives.

The respondent filed an application under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“DV Act”), alleging harassment and deprivation of basic necessities by her husband and his family.

The petitioners were her in-laws: petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were her parents-in-law, and petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 were her sister-in-law and brother-in-law.

The Magistrate issued summons, and the proceedings had advanced to the stage of cross-examination of RW-1 when the petitioners sought to quash them under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The petitioners argued that the allegations against them were vague and that petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 lived separately; the respondent opposed quashing, relying in part on the advanced stage of the proceedings

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the DV Act proceedings against petitioner Nos. 3 and 4, in light of the allegations against them and their separate residence

2. Whether the proceedings against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 should be quashed despite allegations of physical and mental harassment and denial of sustenance in the shared household

The Court considered its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (and its counterpart, Section 528 of the BNSS) to entertain petitions seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act.

Relying on *Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal*, 2025 INSC 734, it stated that such jurisdiction exists but must be exercised with judicial restraint; interference is warranted where abuse of process is manifestly clear

The proceedings concerned reliefs under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the DV Act

The Court found that the application contained no specific individual allegations against petitioner Nos. 3 and 4, apart from vague and omnibus assertions, and noted that they resided separately and away from the shared household.

It concluded that continuing proceedings against them would constitute an abuse of process and result in a miscarriage of justice

By contrast, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 lived in the shared household, and the respondent had made specific allegations against them of physical and mental harassment, including deliberate denial of proper sustenance.

The Court therefore held that the proceedings against them could not be quashed

The proceedings in Crl. Misc. No. 178/2022 under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the DV Act were quashed only in respect of petitioner Nos. 3 and 4