The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has stressed the importance of specific allegations in prosecuting relatives of the husband under Section 498-A IPC, highlighting that vague and general accusations are insufficient grounds for legal action against them.

Quashing an FIR in relation to the accused-husband's parents, Justice Rajnesh Oswal observed that:

“There must be specific allegations against the relatives of the husband, to warrant their prosecution for commission of offence under Section 498-A, but on the bald and general allegations and bereft of necessary details, the relatives of the husband cannot be prosecuted”.

The case involved a woman who filed an FIR alleging harassment for dowry against her husband and his entire family, including parents, siblings, and distant relatives. Petitioners 1 & 2 (the husband's parents) and petitioners 4 to 5 (his siblings) challenged the FIR under Section 482 CrPC, asserting that they were falsely implicated in the matter.

Advocate Mr. Shafiq Choudhary, representing the petitioners, argued that the allegations against them were vague and unsubstantiated by specific instances. He further contended that petitioners 4 to 7 resided separately and thus could not have been involved in the alleged harassment.

In the absence of the complainant's appearance, Government Advocate Bhanu Jasrotia argued that the FIR and subsequent investigation supported the charges against petitioners 1 to 3. He asserted that the statements provided by the complainant and witnesses substantiated the offenses under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, and 505 IPC against the main accused and his parents.

Justice Rajnesh Oswal, after scrutinizing the records and arguments, noted that the allegations leveled by the respondent were specific against petitioner No. 3 (the husband) but vague and generalized against the other petitioners. The Court observed that

"Simply because the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are the parents of the petitioner No.3, they cannot be proceeded against when on similar allegations, which are vague, general and bald in nature, the Investigating Officer has not found the petitioner No. 4 to 7 involved in the commission of offence."

Citing judgments, including "Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar", "K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana", "Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar", and "Abhishek v. State of M.P.", the Court reiterated the Supreme Court's stance on the misuse of Section 498-A IPC and the need for specific allegations to proceed against relatives in matrimonial disputes. Justice Oswal emphasized the potential misuse of the provision and the long-term ramifications of a trial based on unfounded allegations.

Concluding that continuing the proceedings against petitioners 1 & 2 would constitute an abuse of the legal process, the Court quashed the FIR against them. The Court directed that the investigation should proceed against the husband (petitioner 3) based on the specific allegations that were made against him.

Case Title: Manzoor Hussain Vs UT Of J&K