Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Trial: Calcutta High Court Quashes 498A Proceedings Against Husband’s Relatives for Vague and General Allegations

31 July 2025 4:31 PM

By: sayum


“Criminal proceedings cannot be allowed to continue where allegations are omnibus, vague and without specifics; law does not permit oppression of innocent relatives under the guise of matrimonial disputes,” in a detailed and decisive ruling e Calcutta High Court quashed criminal proceedings against three relatives-in-law of a woman, noting that the allegations were “general, baseless and bereft of particulars.” The Court, applying the celebrated Bhajan Lal guidelines, held that continuation of the criminal trial would be an “abuse of process of law.”

The judgment comes as a significant reaffirmation of judicial scrutiny in criminal cases arising out of matrimonial discord, emphasizing the need for specific allegations to sustain prosecution under Section 498A IPC.

“In Absence of Specific Cruelty, Family Members Cannot Be Dragged Into Criminal Prosecution” — High Court Quashes Charge Sheet Against Husband’s Relatives

The case arose out of Amdanga PS Case No. 160/2020, where the complainant, Tapati Das, had alleged that since her marriage in 2017 she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by her husband and in-laws, and was driven out from her matrimonial home. An FIR under Section 498A IPC was filed against her husband, along with her brothers-in-law and a sister-in-law, the petitioners in this case.

However, the Court, after examining the case diary, statements under Section 161 CrPC, and the injury report, found no specific allegation against the petitioners. Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta noted:
“Mere vague, omnibus and bald allegations have been made against the present petitioners with regard to physical and mental torture; therefore it does not constitute offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.”

Domestic Violence Allegations Confined Only to Husband — A Key Reason for Quashment

The Court took particular note of the fact that the complainant had filed proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act only against her husband, without any reference to the petitioners. This omission, the Court said, was a glaring indicator that the complaint against other relatives was an afterthought.

Justice Gupta observed:
“When a complainant herself excludes relatives-in-law in her domestic violence complaint, it speaks volumes about the veracity of omnibus allegations in the FIR.”

“Vague Allegations Do Not Constitute Offence”: Supreme Court Principles Applied

Relying on recent authoritative Supreme Court judgments including Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana (2024 SCC OnLine SC 7), and Tabrez Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Justice Gupta reiterated the principle:
“A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement, should be nipped in the bud.”

The Court highlighted the rising misuse of Section 498A IPC, cautioning against its employment as a tool of harassment.

“Case Falls Within Bhajan Lal Guidelines”: Court Exercises Inherent Power under Section 482 CrPC

Applying the landmark judgment in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Court ruled that the case fell squarely within categories (1), (3), and (5) of the Bhajan Lal guidelines, warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice.

“Even if the allegations are taken at face value, no prima facie offence is made out against the petitioners,” the Court concluded, invoking its powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings.

Proceedings Against Husband to Continue Independently

Clarifying the scope of its judgment, Justice Gupta made it explicit:
“The complaint against the husband of the opposite party no. 2, namely, Joydeb Das, will be decided on its own merits… this Court does not examine the case of her husband.”

This distinction ensured that while innocent relatives were protected from harassment, the complainant’s grievance against her husband would still undergo judicial scrutiny before the trial court.

Quashing of Charge Sheet and All Proceedings Against Relatives-in-Law

In conclusion, the Court allowed the criminal revision and quashed the criminal proceedings, observing:
“Continuation of the criminal proceeding against the present petitioners would result in an abuse of process of law and deserves to be quashed to secure ends of justice.”

The judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to safeguarding innocent individuals from malicious prosecution while upholding the sanctity of criminal proceedings.

Date of Decision: 9th July 2025

Latest Legal News