Vague, omnibus matrimonial allegations without specific roles cannot sustain prosecution under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC.

The petitioners sought quashing of G.R. Case No. 5396 of 2021, arising out of Belghoria Police Station Case No. 419 of 2021 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the 1st Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore.

Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the de facto complainant; petitioner no. 3 was a typist employed in petitioner no. 1’s pathology laboratory, and petitioner no. 4 was petitioner no. 1’s driver.

The complainant alleged that she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty from the second day of her marriage on account of dowry demands.

She further alleged that her husband, who was a drug addict and regular drunkard, physically and mentally tortured her, forced her to consume alcohol, caused bodily injuries, and insulted her.

The husband subsequently died, and the case diary indicated that the principal allegations were directed against him.

The petitioners challenged the continuation of the criminal proceedings on the ground that the allegations were general and that the statutory ingredients of the offences were not made out against them.

Whether the allegations in the complaint and case diary disclosed the ingredients of cruelty under Section 498A IPC against the petitioners, particularly where the principal allegations were against the deceased husband?

Whether petitioner nos. 3 and 4, who were not relatives of the husband, could be prosecuted under Section 498A IPC?

Whether continuation of the proceedings under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law warranting exercise of the High Court’s inherent/revisional jurisdiction?

Section 498A IPC criminalises cruelty by a husband or a relative of the husband and defines cruelty to include wilful conduct likely to cause grave injury or danger to the woman’s physical or mental health, as well as harassment connected with an unlawful demand for property or valuable security.

The Court relied on Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. … of 2024, where the Supreme Court held that vague and omnibus allegations, without specific particulars or active involvement of individual family members, cannot sustain criminal prosecution under Section 498A and that such proceedings may be quashed to prevent abuse of process.

The Court also relied on G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693, and Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667, for the principle that matrimonial complaints must be scrutinised cautiously and allegations against relatives must be specific and supported by concrete material.

The Court applied the State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal category concerning proceedings instituted with an ulterior motive or where continuation would constitute abuse of process.

The Court found that the case diary disclosed general allegations and that the principal accusations of addiction, drunkenness, physical torture, forced consumption of alcohol, and abusive conduct were directed against the deceased husband.

Petitioner nos. 3 and 4 were not relatives of the husband and therefore did not fall within the class of persons liable under Section 498A IPC.

As against petitioner nos. 1 and 2, the allegation that they failed to restrain their son, without specific particulars of their own acts of cruelty, dowry demands, or active participation, was insufficient to establish the statutory ingredients of Section 498A.

Applying the Supreme Court’s caution against prosecuting relatives on the basis of vague and sweeping allegations, the Court concluded that continuation of the proceedings against any of the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

All connected applications were disposed of, any interim order was vacated, and a copy of the judgment was directed to be sent to the trial court for compliance.