Relatives Named in a 498A Case: General Allegations and the Supreme Court's Caution

The problem

FIRs in matrimonial disputes often name not only the husband but his parents, siblings, their spouses and sometimes distant relatives who live elsewhere. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognised that such over-implication can cause great hardship and has cautioned courts against allowing criminal cases to proceed against relatives on general allegations.

Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar (2022)

In this appeal from the Patna High Court, the Supreme Court quashed an FIR against the husband's relatives because the allegations against them were general and omnibus, without specific instances of their role. The Court observed that implicating relatives without specific allegations is an abuse of the process of law.

Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana (2024)

In December 2024, the Supreme Court again quashed proceedings against the husband's family, noting a growing tendency to use the provision as a tool against the husband's family in matrimonial disputes. It held that vague allegations, without specific details of the acts attributed to each person, cannot justify prosecution.

What the court looks for

• Specific acts attributed to each person, with dates or occasions
• Whether the relative lived with the couple at the relevant time
• Whether allegations against the relative appear for the first time after a long delay
• Whether the complaint followed a divorce petition or other proceedings by the husband

Remedies

Relatives named with general allegations may seek anticipatory bail and, where the FIR or chargesheet discloses no specific role, file a petition under Section 528 BNSS before the Patna High Court to quash the proceedings against them, even if the case continues against the husband.