Vague, omnibus allegations without a specific role cannot sustain prosecution of a matrimonial relative.

The complainant alleged that, following her 2011 marriage to petitioner no. 1, she was subjected to cruelty and dowry demands by her husband and his family, and that her ornaments were taken before she was ousted from the matrimonial home.

After recording her statement and examining four witnesses under Section 202 CrPC, the Magistrate took cognizance under Sections 406, 323, 504 and 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused.

During the High Court proceedings, the petition was withdrawn as to petitioners nos. 1 and 2, leaving only the mother-in-law, Lalita Devi, as petitioner.

She sought quashing on the grounds that the allegations against her were general and omnibus and that she lived separately from her son.

1. Whether the complaint and inquiry materials disclosed a prima facie case against Lalita Devi for the offences for which cognizance was taken.

2. Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings against her, in the absence of specific allegations of involvement, would amount to abuse of process.

Under the principles governing cognizance, a Magistrate must apply judicial mind to the materials before the court and determine whether they disclose a prima facie case.

In matrimonial disputes, general and omnibus allegations that do not attribute a specific role to a husband’s relative may not justify continuation of criminal proceedings; the High Court relied on Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in the judgment as 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083, for the need to examine whether allegations disclose a specific role.

The offences cited in the cognizance order were Sections 406, 323, 504 and 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The Court examined the complaint and inquiry materials and found that they contained no specific overt act by Lalita Devi capable of prima facie establishing the alleged offences; her status as the complainant’s mother-in-law was insufficient by itself.

The Court also noted that the husband had contracted another marriage and that Lalita Devi was stated to live separately from him. Taken together with the absence of specific allegations, these circumstances made continuation of the proceedings against her unjustified.

The allegations, even taken at face value, did not disclose the necessary ingredients of the offences against her.

The petition was allowed as to her.

The petitions concerning petitioners nos. 1 and 2 had separately been dismissed as withdrawn.