Vague omnibus allegations without specific acts cannot sustain criminal proceedings against matrimonial relatives.

The petitioners, the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the de facto complainant, challenged the order dated 29 November 2024 by which the Judicial Magistrate, 10th Court, Alipore, took cognizance against them and other accused persons under Sections 498A, 406, 341, 323 and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, in connection with Behala P.S. Case No. 3 of 2021.

The complainant alleged that her husband and in-laws subjected her to physical and mental cruelty for dowry, misappropriated her stridhan, wrongfully restrained and assaulted her, and that the petitioners provoked her husband and mother-in-law over telephone to inflict such torture.

After investigation, a chargesheet was submitted against six accused persons, including the petitioners.

The petitioners contended that they had been residing in Bengaluru since 2012, before the complainant’s marriage, and had been implicated on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations without any specific act or corroborative material.

The State confirmed that no call-detail records or other material establishing the alleged telephone conversations had been collected during investigation.

Whether the criminal proceedings and order taking cognizance could be quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC, when the allegations against the petitioners were general, vague and unsupported by specific particulars or corroborative material.

Whether the allegations of telephone-based provocation, without specifying the date, time, manner or content of the alleged conversations, disclosed a prima facie offence under Sections 498A, 406, 341, 323 and 34 IPC or Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC, to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

It applied the principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which permit quashing where the allegations, even if accepted at face value, do not disclose an offence or are so vague and improbable that no prudent person could conclude that sufficient grounds exist to proceed; the Court treated the case as falling within Categories 1 and 5 of Bhajan Lal.

Relying on Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, and Geddam Jhansi v. State of Telangana, the Court held that general and omnibus allegations against relatives in matrimonial disputes, without specific attribution of criminal acts, cannot sustain prosecution under Section 498A IPC and allied provisions.

The Court also applied the principle that criminal proceedings in domestic disputes require specific allegations and supporting material against each accused, and that relatives living separately cannot be indiscriminately implicated merely because of their familial relationship.

The Court found that the allegations against the petitioners consisted only of assertions that they had telephoned the husband and mother-in-law and provoked them to torture the complainant.

No specific date, time, words, manner of provocation or individual overt act was disclosed either in the complaint or during investigation.

The investigation also yielded no call-detail records or other evidence proving the alleged conversations or the petitioners’ participation in the alleged cruelty, assault, wrongful restraint, misappropriation or dowry-related offences.

The Court held that ordinary telephone communication between family members, without more, could not constitute provocation or establish the commission of an offence.

Since the allegations were vague and omnibus and lacked prima facie supporting material, continuation of the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process under the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal and the other relied-upon authorities.

The revisional application was allowed, and ACGR-71/21 arising out of Behala P.S. Case No. 3 of 2021 was quashed insofar as the petitioners were concerned.

Connected applications, if any, were disposed of, and any interim order was vacated.