Vague & Omnibus Allegations Against Husband's Relatives In Matrimonial Disputes Amount To Abuse Of Process: Chhattisgarh High Court Quashes FIR Under Section 85 BNS

"Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions." High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, in a significant ruling, held that criminal proceedings cannot be sustained against a husband's relatives in the absence of specific overt acts or distinct allegations of cruelty.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal observed that roping in the entire family through vague and omnibus allegations in matrimonial disputes constitutes a gross abuse of the process of law. The court emphasized that the transition from the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) does not alter the judicial requirement for specific evidence when invoking provisions related to matrimonial cruelty.

The case originated from a matrimonial dispute where the wife (Respondent No. 2) lodged an FIR in January 2026 against her husband and five relatives, including her parents-in-law, brother-in-law, and sister-in-law. The allegations included physical and mental harassment for dowry and verbal abuse, occurring after the marriage was solemnized in December 2020. The petitioners approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), seeking to quash the FIR and the subsequent charge-sheet.

The primary question before the court was whether the allegations in the FIR and the material collected during the investigation disclosed a prima facie case against the relatives of the husband under Section 85 of the BNS. The court was also called upon to determine if the criminal prosecution was initiated with an ulterior motive to harass the petitioners or to wreak vengeance upon the entire family.

Court Examines Definition Of Cruelty Under Section 85 Of BNS

The High Court undertook a detailed analysis of Section 85 of the BNS, noting that it is the successor to Section 498A of the IPC. The bench observed that for an offence of cruelty to be established, the prosecution must prove that the woman was subjected to willful conduct likely to drive her to suicide or grave injury, or harassment aimed at coercing her to meet unlawful demands for property or valuable security. The court highlighted that "it is not every type of harassment or cruelty that would attract the provisions of Section 85 of the BNS."

The bench further clarified that to bring a case within the ambit of the penal provision, there must be a showing of a specific unlawful demand and that the alleged harassment was directly connected to such a demand. In the present case, the court found that the allegations were wholly general and lacked specific dates, times, or distinct overt acts attributable to any of the individual petitioners. The court noted that neither the FIR nor the witness statements disclosed a precise role played by each family member.

General Tendency To Rope In Relatives Without Specific Overt Acts

Drawing from a long line of precedents including Geeta Mehrotra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, the High Court reiterated that there is often a tendency to implicate all members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise. The bench remarked that "a mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations, cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution."

The court took judicial notice of the fact that some of the accused relatives resided in different districts, such as Manendragarh and Mungeli, away from the matrimonial home. The bench observed that no material was collected during the investigation to indicate their active participation in the alleged offences. The court stressed that continuing such proceedings would lead to insurmountable harassment and agony for relatives who had been unnecessarily arrayed as accused.

Judicial Process Cannot Be Used As Instrument Of Oppression

"The judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be permitted to be used as an instrument of oppression or harassment," the court observed. It relied on the landmark judgment of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, specifically Categories (1), (3), and (7), which allow the High Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings that are manifestly attended with mala fide or where the allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence.

The High Court also noted that the husband and mother-in-law had filed multiple complaints against the conduct of the wife and her family members prior to the registration of the FIR. This sequence of events suggested that the criminal prosecution was potentially a "counterblast" to the ongoing matrimonial discord. The bench noted that even if the allegations in the charge-sheet were accepted in their entirety, they remained bereft of the necessary particulars required to constitute a cognizable offence under the BNS.

The court concluded that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law and a waste of judicial time. Consequently, the High Court quashed the FIR dated January 19, 2026, the charge-sheet, the cognizance order, and all consequential proceedings against all the petitioners. The bench clarified that this order would not influence separate maintenance proceedings instituted under Section 125(4) of the BNSS, which are to be decided independently on their own merits.

Date of Decision: 03 July 2026