The Supreme Court has held that criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC, the Dowry Prohibition Act and the DV Act against relatives of the husband are liable to be quashed where the allegations against such relatives are only omnibus and general in nature, lacking specific factual assertions, distinct overt acts and prima facie material showing their active involvement in cruelty, dowry demand or domestic violence. The continuance of such proceedings in the absence of legally sustainable and particularised allegations would amount to abuse of the process of law.
The Court further held that quashing under Section 482 CrPC at the threshold is not equivalent to an acquittal on merits and therefore does not attract the bar of double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution or Section 300 CrPC. Accordingly, if cogent evidence emerges during trial against the remaining accused, the trial court may still proceed against the quashed accused under Section 319 CrPC.
A Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed that the filing of a charge-sheet does not bar the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC if continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process. On examining the FIR, the DV complaint and the complainant’s own pleadings in the matrimonial proceedings, the Bench found that the allegations against the appellants were omnibus, generalised and devoid of specific material particulars such as distinct dates, incidents, overt acts or clearly delineated roles. The core allegations constituting matrimonial cruelty were held to be specifically attributable to the husband alone.
The Bench reiterated that mere familial relationship with the husband, failure to intervene in the marital dispute, or broadly stated assertions that relatives “supported” the husband or “used to harass” the complainant, without more, are insufficient to sustain criminal prosecution. At the same time, the Bench clarified that genuine cases of cruelty and domestic violence by relatives are prosecutable where specific overt acts and prima facie material exist, and that quashing at this stage does not amount to permanent exoneration if evidence later emerges during trial.
Briefly, the appeals arose from the refusal of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh to quash, under Section 482 CrPC, (i) FIR registered under Sections 498A and 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and (ii) proceedings in D.V. Complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, insofar as they concerned the husband’s relatives, namely Arti Mehta, Shrivati Bai Dhakad, Manisha Dhakad and Vikram Dhakad. The complainant-wife alleged dowry demand, mental and physical cruelty and harassment by her husband and these relatives.
In the FIR and DV complaint, allegations against the relatives were broadly stated, while the more detailed pleadings in the divorce petition showed that the principal matrimonial residence was at Sheopur with the husband and that the specific allegations of assault, abuse, neglect, threats, surveillance and suspicious conduct were directed overwhelmingly against the husband. The marriage had also been dissolved by a decree of divorce during the pendency of the proceedings.
