In matrimonial disputes, criminal proceedings against the husband's relatives must be quashed if the complaint contains only vague, general, or omnibus allegations without specific instances of cruelty or dowry demand, as maintaining such trials constitutes an abuse of the legal process.

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’)/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) seeking to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 5 in C.C.No.487 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kanigiri (for brevity, ‘the learned Trial Court’).

Initially, notice to Respondent No.2 was issued but returned un-served. Therefore, this Court permitted the Petitioners to serve notice on the Counsel for Respondent No.2, who was appearing before ‘the learned Trial Court’. Accordingly, notice was sent to the Counsel for Respondent No.2, and a memo to that effect has been filed. There is no representation for Respondent No.2. Hence, a learned legal aid counsel is appointed to argue the case on behalf of Respondent No.2, for the ends of justice as no prejudice is caused to Respondent No.2. Hence, Mr.K.Lenin Babu, learned counsel, is appointed as learned legal aid counsel for Respondent No.2 in this case. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, is directed to issue necessary proceedings in this regard.

Mr. K. Sreedhar Murthy, learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that they have been falsely implicated on vague and omnibus allegations, despite living separately for decades without any involvement in the matrimonial affairs of Accused No.1 and Respondent No.2. He further submits that the present proceedings are a counterblast to F.C.O.P.No.1742 of 2023 and constitute an abuse of process of law, as the complaint and charge sheet are motivated and lack specific allegations.

Per contra, Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that Respondent No.2 was subjected to cruelty and harassment not only by Accused No.1 but also by the Petitioners. It is further submitted that specific allegations were made against them, and that their acts of demanding additional dowry and abusing the complainant amount to clear instances of cruelty and harassment under law.

Mr.K.Lenin Babu, learned legal aid counsel for Respondent No.2, argued on the same lines as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, supporting the allegations of harassment and opposing the quash petition.

Heard learned counsel for Petitioners, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned legal aid counsel for Respondent No.2. Perused the record.

Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record.

In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.487 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kanigiri are liable to be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’/Section 528 of ‘the BNSS’?”

On careful perusal of the record, it is observed that Petitioner No.1/Accused No.2 is a 70-year-old female, the mother of Accused No.1. Petitioner No.2/Accused No.3 is the brother of Accused No.1 and the brother-in-law of Respondent No.2. Petitioner No.3/Accused No.4 is the sister of Accused No.1 and the sister-in-law of Respondent No.2, aged about 50 years. Petitioner No.4/Accused No.5 is the husband of the sister of Accused No.1 and the husband of Respondent No.3, aged about 56 years. The Accused No.1/husband of Respondent No.2 has not filed any petition seeking quashment of the proceedings.

In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the Judgment of the High Court of Allahabad, in Mukesh Bansal v. State of U.P ¹2022 SCC OnLine All 395 at paragraph Nos.48 and 49, held as under:

“48. Thus assesing the totality of the circumstances, object and the allegation of misuse of this piece of legislation in a shape of Section 498A IPC, the Court i