The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. [2024] 2 S.C.R. 252 : 2024 INSC 101 held that if the allegations of cruelty and domestic violence levelled against in-laws are found to be general and vague, lacking any material particulars and specific role, such proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law and need to be quashed. The Hon’ble Court further held that the phenomenon of false implication by way of general omnibus allegations in the course of matrimonial disputes is not unknown.
In Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar, [2022] 1 S.C.R. 558 this Hon’ble Court dealt with a similar case wherein the allegations made by the complainant-wife against her in-laws u/s. 498A and others were vague and general, lacking any specific role and particulars. The court proceeded to quash the FIR against the accused persons and noted that such a situation, if left unchecked, would result in the abuse of the process of law.
Further, in similar context, the Hon’ble SC in Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P., while considering the principles applicable to the exercise of jurisdiction u/s. 482 CrPC, observed as follows:
“12. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged.”