Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay High Court

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