1. Petition seeking quashment of criminal proceedings for dowry and cruelty offences on ground of general and omnibus allegations. (Para 1 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(MP) 536
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Vinay Saraf, J.
Lokendra Singh Rathore and Others – Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Misc. Criminal case No. 12666 of 2025
Decided On : 11-03-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Shri Baboo Ji Chourasia, Advocate
For the Respondent:Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer, Shri Ashish Kumar Kurmi, Advocate
For the Petitioner:Shri Baboo Ji Chourasia, Advocate
For the Respondent:Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer, Shri Ashish Kumar Kurmi, Advocate
Criminal proceedings against in-laws in matrimonial disputes should be quashed if the allegations are general and omnibus, without specific roles attributed to them, as such prosecutions constitute an abuse of the process of law.
Headnote:(A) Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482; Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 85, 115(2), 296, 351(2), 3(5); Dowry Prohibition Act - Section 3/4 - Quashment of criminal proceedings in matrimonial disputes - Allegations against close relatives of the husband are general and omnibus - In the absence of specific instances of criminal conduct or specific roles attributed to the in-laws, they cannot be put to trial (Paras 6, 10 and 13).
(B) Matrimonial Disputes - Tendency of implicating all relatives of the husband - Court observed that complainants are often permitted to rope in all family members to create pressure upon the husband - Such proceedings, when based on bald allegations without credible evidence in the chargesheet, constitute an abuse of the process of law (Paras 10 and 12).
Facts of the case:
A petition was filed for the quashment of criminal proceedings arising from an FIR registered for offences related to cruelty and dowry demands. The accused included the husband, the father-in-law, and the mother-in-law. The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings against the father-in-law and mother-in-law, contending that the allegations were vague and general, lacking any specific material or instances of criminal conduct. The respondent argued that the in-laws actively participated in the harassment and made specific demands for luxury items and cash.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the FIR contained only bald and omnibus allegations against the father-in-law and mother-in-law. A perusal of the chargesheet revealed that no credible evidence had been collected by the Investigating Officer to prosecute the close relatives of the husband, and the statements recorded during the investigation were merely reproductions of the FIR.
Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings against the father-in-law and mother-in-law should be quashed on the ground that the allegations against them were general and omnibus, lacking specific roles or credible evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: It would be unjust to force the close relatives of a husband to undergo the tribulations of a trial when no specific role has been attributed to them and the allegations are general and omnibus. Courts must scrutinize such complaints with care to prevent the misuse of law for the purpose of exerting pressure in matrimonial disputes.
Result: Petition allowed in part. FIR and criminal proceedings quashed qua petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No. 3.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- crime and sentencing
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners argued allegations were general and not specific; respondents argued sufficient specific allegations existed to warrant trial. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
3. Court observed that FIR and chargesheet contained only omnibus allegations without specific role attributed to close relatives, constituting abuse of process. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
4. Criminal proceedings against close relatives of husband based solely on general and omnibus allegations are liable to be quashed. (Para 10 , 13 )
5. Petition allowed in part; proceedings quashed against father-in-law and mother-in-law, but continue against husband. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 )
6. When can criminal proceedings against in-laws be quashed in dowry cases?
When allegations are general and omnibus without specific role attributed, to prevent abuse of process of law. (Para 6 , 7 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
7. What is the test for quashing FIR under Section 482 CrPC in matrimonial disputes?
Court must examine if allegations disclose specific criminal conduct against each accused; general allegations are insufficient. (Para 10 , 13 )
8. What constitutes sufficient specific allegations against relatives in dowry harassment cases?
Allegations must attribute a distinct role or specific instance of criminal conduct to each relative; general accusations are not enough. (Para 6 , 10 , 13 )
ORDER :
Vinay Saraf, J.
1. Petitioner No.1 Lokendra Rathore is the husband, Petitioner No.2 Om Prakash Rathore is the father-in-law and Petitioner No.3 Smt. Geeta Devi Rathore is the mother-in-law of the complainant/respondent No.2 Smt. Shalini Rathore.
2. At the outset, counsel for the petitioners does not press the petition on behalf of the petitioner no.1 Lokendra Singh Rathore.
3. Consequently, the petition is dismissed qua petitioner no.1 Lokendra Rathore.
4. With the consent of parties, arguments heard for the purpose of final disposal.
5. The present petition has been preferred by petitioners under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 R/W section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashment of criminal proceedings arising out of FIR bearing Crime No.08/2025, registered at Police Station Nowgaon, District Chhatarpur for the offence punishable under Sections 85 , 115(2), 296, 351(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3 /4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
6. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the husband and his family members have been implicated in the present matter only on the basis of the omnibus allegations and no sufficient evidence and allegations are available against the mother-in-law and father-in-law to put them on trial. He further submits that the plain reading of FIR and chargesheet papers indicate that the allegations levelled 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 chargesheet, which may attributed to them. 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 Nos.17 to 22 of the judgment are relevant and read 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 allegations made against him. However, as far as the Appellants are concerned
