General and omnibus allegations in matrimonial disputes do not justify criminal prosecution against relatives of the husband without specific evidence.

ORDER :

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners does not press the petition on behalf of petitioner No.1-Himanshu Sharma, who is the husband of the complainant.

Petition is dismissed on behalf of petitioner No.1-Himanshu Sharma and trial will go on against him.

Petitioner No.2 Neeraj Sharma is the mother-in-law, petitioner No.3 Harendra Sharma is father-in-law and petitioner No.4 Pavitra Sharma is sister-in-law of the complainant/respondent No.2 Ankita Katare.

1. The present petition has been preferred by petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashment of criminal proceedings arising out of FIR bearing Crime No.0004/2023 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Gwalior for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 506, 34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the family members of the husband have been implicated in the present matter only on the basis of the omnibus allegations and there are no sufficient evidence and allegations against the mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law to put them on trial. He further submits that the plain reading of FIR and charge sheet papers indicate that the allegations leveled against the relatives of the husband are quite vague, general and no specific instance of criminal conduct has been stated in the FIR and no material is available in the charge sheet which may attributed to them. He further submits that the FIR is lodged after receipt of the notice of the divorce petition filed by the husband. There was complete silence before the receipt of the notice and lodging of the FIR is a counter blast. He further submits that considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, allegations and evidence collected during investigation there is nothing on record to continue the criminal trial against the close relatives of the husband. He relied on the judgment of Apex Court delivered in the matter of Kahkashan Kausar Alias Sonam vs. State of Bihar and ors, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599, wherein after considering the various judgments of the Apex Court it is observed that only on the basis of the general and omnibus allegations the close relatives of the husband cannot be put to trial. Paragraph No.17 to 22 of the judgment are relevant and reads as under:-

“17. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.

18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the Appellants. The complainant alleged that ‘all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy’. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High court, we have not examined the veracity of