Vague, omnibus allegations without specific acts of cruelty cannot sustain a Section 498A prosecution against in-laws.

The second respondent alleged that, following her 2013 marriage to A1, she was subjected to harassment by her husband and the petitioners, his parents.

She and A1 separated in March 2019; she later complained about divorce notices and alleged demands and appropriation of money and property.

After investigation, the police filed a final report, and the Magistrate took cognizance of offences under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, read with Section 34 IPC, against all accused.

A2 and A3 sought to quash the proceedings against them under Section 528 BNSS, contending that the allegations were general and lacked specific allegations of their involvement.

Whether the allegations against A2 and A3 disclosed the ingredients of cruelty under Section 498A IPC sufficient to sustain prosecution

Whether the criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 1249 of 2025 should be quashed as against A2 and A3

Section 498A IPC applies where a husband’s relative subjects a woman to “cruelty,” which includes wilful conduct likely to drive her to suicide or cause grave injury or danger to life, or harassment intended to coerce her or a related person to meet an unlawful demand for property or valuable security.

The Court relied on Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735, for the principle that generalised accusations against a husband’s family, without specific allegations indicating active involvement, should not form the basis for criminal prosecution.

The petition was brought under Section 528 BNSS, 2023.

The Court found that the complainant had separated from A1 in March 2019, did not live with A2 and A3, and that they lived separately; it also found no specific allegations describing harassment or cruelty by them.

The allegations concerning control of the complainant’s salary and household work were treated as directed specifically at A1, while the accusations against A2 and A3 were characterised as bald and general.

Applying the ingredients of Section 498A IPC and the principle in Dara Lakshmi Narayana, the Court concluded that the material did not disclose a sufficient basis to continue the prosecution against A2 and A3.

It directed the trial court to proceed against A1 in accordance with law and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions.