JUDGMENT : (Rakesh Kainthla, J.) The present petition under Section 528 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) has been filed for quashing of F.I.R. No. 293 of 2021, dated 16.11.2021 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), registered at Police Station Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. and consequential proceedings arising out of the F.I.R. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the informant made a complaint to Police Post Dehar on 16.11.2021 stating that she was married to accused Rohit Mahajan six years before filing the complaint. One daughter Yahana and one son Yashit were born to her. Her husband Rohit Mahajan, her mother-in-law Veena Mahajan, her father-in-law Sushil Mahajan, and her sisters-in-law Ruchita, Suchita and Sumila started picking up faults in the household chores done by her after the lapse of some months. They used to say that the informant was a ‘Pahadan’, who did not know household work, she did know how to cook food, her parents had not taught her anything and her parents had no standards. Accused Ruchita, Suchita and Sumila used to taunt her for the work done by her. They used to say that her parents had not provided anything in the marriage. The informant’s parents gifted a Kisan Vikas Patra of Rs.1,00,000/- to her. The accused threw Kisan Vikas Patra on the informant’s face and told her to get Rs.5,00,000/- or else she should not return to her matrimonial home. The accused told her that she would not be allowed to meet her children. She was not permitted to go outside her matrimonial home. Her sisters-in-law used to accompany her if ever she went out of her matrimonial home. The informant’s husband and his relatives used to say that she had an illicit relationship with her brother-in-law. The accused used to say that the ornaments given to her were quite small and no ornaments were given to her sisters-in-law. The informant’s husband, her parents-in-law and her sisters-in-law asked her many times to bring money from her parents. The informant’s father handed over the money two times. The informant went to her parental home on 11.10.2021 with Suchita, the driver and her daughter. She was dropped at Shalaghat by her sister-in-law. The informant called her brother, who took her to her parental home. The informant’s father handed over the money two times. The informant went to her parental home on 11.10.2021 with Suchita, the driver and her daughter. She was dropped at Shalaghat by her sister-in-law. The informant called her brother, who took her to her parental home. The informant fell ill and whenever she called her husband, her phone was not picked up. She was also not allowed to talk to her children. The accused threatened to falsely implicate the parents and sisters of the informant. The police registered the F.I.R. and conducted the investigation. A charge sheet was filed before the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class-II, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. after completion of the investigation 3. Being aggrieved from the registration of the F.I.R. and filing of the charge sheet, the petitioners have filed the present petition asserting that the informant had left her matrimonial home on her own. She had given a stereo-typed version. No specific allegations giving particulars of offence and date of incident were given. The continuation of the proceedings is an abuse of the process of the Court. The F.I.R. was lodged after the six years of the marriage. The petitioners treated the informant cordially and they never harassed her. The criminal proceedings have been initiated with mala fide intention to harass the petitioners. The informant had not made any complaint to Pardhan or the Police after 2015. The informant is residing with her parents on her own. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and F.I.R. and consequential proceedings arising out of the same be quashed. 4. The petition is opposed by respondent / State by filing a reply making preliminary submissions regarding lack of maintainability, the F.I.R. discloses the commission of a heinous offence and the present petition having been filed with ulterior motives. The contents of the F.I.R. were reproduced. It was asserted that the statements of witnesses recorded by the police supported the informant’s allegations. Informant was called ‘Pahadan’. She was abandoned at Shalaghat. Her father paid Rs.25,000/- after three-four months of her marriage and Rs.50,000/- after three-four years of marriage. An additional demand of Rs.5,00,000/- was also made by the petitioners. The petitioners ill-treated the informant. A charge sheet has been filed before the competent Court and there is every likelihood of the petitioners getting convicted. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed. An additional demand of Rs.5,00,000/- was also made by the petitioners. The petitioners ill-treated the informant. A charge sheet has been filed before the competent Court and there is every likelihood of the petitioners getting convicted. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 5. I have heard Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. 6. Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated by the informant. She is residing in her parental home voluntarily. The allegations made by her in the F.I.R. are vague and do not contain any specific particulars. A charge sheet filed on such vague allegations will not result in the conviction of the accused. The continuation of the proceedings amounts to an abuse of process of the Court. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and F.I.R. and consequential proceedings arising out of the same be quashed. He relied upon judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599 and Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3682 in support of his submission. 7. Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the F.I.R. contains sufficient details of the harassment by the petitioners. The police conducted the investigation and the allegations made by the informant were duly supported by the witnesses. The police found sufficient reasons to file a chare-sheet and the matter is pending before the competent Court. The truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations is a matter of trial and this Court should not quash the proceedings without allowing the prosecution to prove the allegations during the trial. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 8. I have given considerable thought to the submissions mdeat the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 9. The law relating to quashing of FIR was exhaustively explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.N. John v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 7 as under: - “7. As far as the quashing of criminal cases is concerned, it is now more or less well settled as regards the principles to be applied by the court. 9. The law relating to quashing of FIR was exhaustively explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.N. John v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 7 as under: - “7. As far as the quashing of criminal cases is concerned, it is now more or less well settled as regards the principles to be applied by the court. In this regard, one may refer to the decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein this Court has summarized some of the principles under which FIR/complaints/criminal cases could be quashed in the following words: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” (emphasis added) 8. Of the aforesaid criteria, clause no. (1), (4) and (6) would be of relevance to us in this case. In clause (1) it has been mentioned that where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, then the FIR or the complaint can be quashed. As per clause (4), where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order dated by the Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the CrPC, and in such a situation, the FIR can be quashed. Similarly, as provided under clause (6), if there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the CrPC or the concerned Act under which the criminal proceedings are instituted, such proceeding can be quashed.” 10. Similarly, as provided under clause (6), if there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the CrPC or the concerned Act under which the criminal proceedings are instituted, such proceeding can be quashed.” 10. This position was reiterated in Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 185 wherein it was observed: “8. It is well established that a High Court, in exercising its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, may issue orders to prevent the abuse of court processes or to secure the ends of justice. These inherent powers are neither controlled nor limited by any other statutory provision. However, given the broad and profound nature of this authority, the High Court must exercise it sparingly. The conditions for invoking such powers are embedded within Section 482 of the CrPC itself, allowing the High Court to act only in cases of clear abuse of process or where intervention is essential to uphold the ends of justice. 9. It is in this backdrop that this Court, over the course of several decades, has laid down the principles and guidelines that High Courts must follow before quashing criminal proceedings at the threshold, thereby pre-empting the Prosecution from building its case before the Trial Court. The grounds for quashing, inter alia, contemplate the following situations : ( i ) the criminal complaint has been filed with mala fides; ( ii ) the FIR represents an abuse of the legal process; ( iii ) no prima facie offence is made out; ( iv ) the dispute is civil in nature; ( v. ) the complaint contains vague and omnibus allegations; and ( vi ) the parties are willing to settle and compound the dispute amicably ( State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 11. The present petition is to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neelu Chopra v. Bharti, (2009) 10 SCC 184 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 286: 2009 SCC OnLine SC 1693 that the Court has to see that particulars of the offences committed by every accused and the role played by the accused in committing the offence are given in the complaint made to the police. It was observed: - “9. It was observed: - “9. To lodge a proper complaint, the mere mention of the sections and the language of those sections is not the be-all and end-all of the matter. What is required to be brought to the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing that offence. 10. When we see the complaint, the complaint is sadly vague. It does not show as to which accused has committed what offence and what is the exact role played by these appellants in the commission of offence. There could be said something against Rajesh, as the allegations are made against him more precisely, but he is no more and has already expired. Under such circumstances, it would be an abuse of the process of law to allow the prosecution to continue against the aged parents of Rajesh, the present appellants herein, on the basis of a vague and general complaint which is silent about the precise acts of the appellants.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. Similarly, it was held in Abhishek v. State of M.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083: 2023 INSC 779 that the tendency of false implication by way of general omnibus allegations, if left unchecked, would result in the misuse of the process of law. It was observed: “13. Instances of a husband's family members filing a petition to quash criminal proceedings launched against them by his wife in the midst of matrimonial disputes are neither a rarity nor of recent origin. Precedents aplenty abound on this score. We may now take note of some decisions of particular relevance. Recently, in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar [ (2022) 6 SCC 599 ], this Court had occasion to deal with a similar situation where the High Court had refused to quash a FIR registered for various offences, including Section 498A IPC. Noting that the foremost issue that required determination was whether allegations made against the in-laws were general omnibus allegations which would be liable to be quashed, this Court referred to earlier decisions wherein concern was expressed over the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the increased tendency to implicate relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes. Noting that the foremost issue that required determination was whether allegations made against the in-laws were general omnibus allegations which would be liable to be quashed, this Court referred to earlier decisions wherein concern was expressed over the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the increased tendency to implicate relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes. This Court observed that false implications by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial disputes, if left unchecked, would result in misuse of the process of law. On the facts of that case, it was found that no specific allegations were made against the in-laws by the wife, and it was held that allowing their prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws would result in an abuse of the process of law. It was also noted that a criminal trial, leading to an eventual acquittal, would inflict severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise ought to be discouraged. 14. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [ (2010) 7 SCC 667 ] this Court noted that the tendency to implicate the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon in complaints filed under Section 498A IPC. It was observed that the Courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases, such as allegations of harassment by the husband's close relations, who were living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided, would add an entirely different complexion and such allegations would have to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection. 15. Earlier, in Neelu Chopra v. Bharti [ (2009) 10 SCC 184 ] this Court observed that the mere mention of statutory provisions and the language thereof for lodging a complaint is not the ‘be all and end all’ of the matter, as what is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in the commission of that offence. These observations were made in the context of a matrimonial dispute involving Section 498A IPC.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. These observations were made in the context of a matrimonial dispute involving Section 498A IPC.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. It was held in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 759: 2024 INSC 369 that asking a person to face criminal allegations without any specific instance of criminal misconduct amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. It was observed: “18. The plain reading of the FIR and the chargesheet papers indicate that the allegations levelled by the First Informant are quite vague, general and sweeping, specifying no instances of criminal conduct. It is also pertinent to note that in the FIR, no specific date or time of the alleged offence/offences has been disclosed. Even the police thought fit to drop the proceedings against the other members of the Appellant's family. Thus, we are of the view that the FIR lodged by Respondent No. 2 was nothing but a counterblast to the divorce petition & also the domestic violence case. 25. If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. The court owes a duty to subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to thorough scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial dispute.” (Emphasis supplied) 15. It was further held that in matrimonial disputes, the parents, including the close relatives, make a mountain out of a molehill, and every matrimonial conduct amounting to nuisance does not constitute cruelty. It was observed: - “32. Many times, the parents, including the close relatives of the wife, make a mountain out of a mole. Instead of salvaging the situation and making all possible endeavours to save the marriage, their action, either due to ignorance or on account of sheer hatred towards the husband and his family members, brings about the complete destruction of marriage on trivial issues. The first thing that comes to mind of the wife, her parents and her relatives is the Police as if the Police is the panacea of all evil. The first thing that comes to mind of the wife, her parents and her relatives is the Police as if the Police is the panacea of all evil. No sooner the matter reaches up to the Police, then even if there are fair chances of reconciliation between the spouses, they would get destroyed. The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another. Tolerance of each other's fault, to a certain bearable extent, has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty quibbles and trifling differences are mundane matters and should not be exaggerated and blown out of proportion to destroy what is said to have been made in heaven. The Court must appreciate that all quarrels must be weighed from that point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case, always keeping in view the physical and mental conditions of the parties, their character and social status. A very technical and hyper-sensitive approach would prove to be disastrous for the very institution of the marriage. In matrimonial disputes, the main sufferers are the children. The spouses fight with such venom in their hearts that they do not think even for a second that if the marriage would come to an end, then what will be the effect on their children? Divorce plays a very dubious role so far as the upbringing of the children is concerned. The only reason why we are saying so is that instead of handling the whole issue delicately, the initiation of criminal proceedings would bring about nothing but hatred for each other. There may be cases of genuine ill- treatment and harassment by the husband and his family members towards the wife. The degree of such ill- treatment or harassment may vary. However, the Police machinery should be resorted to as a measure of last resort and that too in a very genuine case of cruelty and harassment. The Police machinery cannot be utilised for the purpose of holding the husband at ransom so that he could be squeezed by the wife at the instigation of her parents, relatives or friends. In all cases where the wife complains of harassment or ill-treatment, Section 498A of the IPC cannot be applied mechanically. No FIR is complete without Sections 506(2) and 323 of the IPC. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. In all cases where the wife complains of harassment or ill-treatment, Section 498A of the IPC cannot be applied mechanically. No FIR is complete without Sections 506(2) and 323 of the IPC. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, and quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty” 16. Similarly, it was held in Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy v. State of A.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 127: 2024 (2) SCR 252 that the phenomena of false implication by general omnibus allegation in the case of matrimonial dispute are not unknown to the Court. When the allegations are general and omnibus, the prosecution should not be continued. It was observed: - “14. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is significant merit in the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Appellants. A bare perusal of the complaint, statement of witnesses and the charge sheet shows that the allegations against the Appellants are wholly general and omnibus in nature; even if they are taken in their entirety, they do not prima facie make out a case against the Appellants. The material on record neither discloses any particulars of the offences alleged nor discloses the specific role/allegations assigned to any of the Appellants in the commission of the offences. 15. The phenomenon of false implication by way of general omnibus allegations in the course of matrimonial disputes is not unknown to this Court. In Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599 , this 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. xxxx 17. Considering the dicta in Mahmood Ali (supra), we find that the High Court, in this case, has failed to exercise due care and has mechanically permitted the criminal proceedings to continue despite specifically finding that the allegations are general and omnibus in nature. xxxx 17. Considering the dicta in Mahmood Ali (supra), we find that the High Court, in this case, has failed to exercise due care and has mechanically permitted the criminal proceedings to continue despite specifically finding that the allegations are general and omnibus in nature. The Appellants herein approached the High Court on inter alia grounds that the proceedings were re-initiated on vexatious grounds and even highlighted the commencement of divorce proceedings by Respondent No. 2. In these peculiar circumstances, the High Court had a duty to consider the allegations with great care and circumspection so as to protect against the danger of unjust prosecution.” 17. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2621 that general and vague allegations of cruelty made against the husband and his relatives are not sufficient to constitute cruelty. It was observed: - “10.1 The tendency to make general, vague, and omnibus allegations is noticed by this Court in many decisions. In Usha Chakraborty v. State of W.B. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90 this court observed that: “16… the respondent alleged commission of offences under S tions 323, 384, 406, 423, 467, 468, 420 and 120B, IPC against the appellants. A bare perusal of the said allegation and the ingredients to attract them, as adverted to hereinbefore, would reveal that the allegations are vague and they did not carry the essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offences…. The ingredients to attract the alleged offence referred to hereinbefore and the nature of the allegations contained in the application filed by the respondent would undoubtedly make it clear that the respondent had failed to make specific allegations against the appellants herein in respect of the aforesaid offences. The factual position thus would reveal that the genesis as also the purpose of criminal proceedings are nothing but the aforesaid incident and further that the dispute involved is essentially of a civil nature. The appellants and the respondents have given a cloak of a criminal offence in the issue…” 10.2 Similarly, dealing with allegations lacking in particulars and details, in Neelu Chopra v. Bharti (2009) 10 SCC 184 , this court observed that: “7. The appellants and the respondents have given a cloak of a criminal offence in the issue…” 10.2 Similarly, dealing with allegations lacking in particulars and details, in Neelu Chopra v. Bharti (2009) 10 SCC 184 , this court observed that: “7. …what strikes us is that there are no particulars given as to the date on which the ornaments were handed over, as to the exact number of ornaments or their description and as to the date when the ornaments were asked back and were refused. Even the weight of the ornaments is not mentioned in the complaint, and it is a general and vague complaint that the ornaments were sometimes given in the custody of the appellants and they were not returned. What strikes us more is that even in Para 10 of the complaint, where the complainant says that she asked for her clothes and ornaments, which were given to the accused, and they refused to give these back, the date is significantly absent.” xxxx 12. The complaint also refers to a small incident where the complainant's brother accompanied her to the matrimonial house when appellants no. 1 and 3 are alleged to have refused to take her back, but on persuasion by her brother, she was allowed to stay. There is also a vague allegation that, when the complainant gave birth to a second child, appellants 1 and 2 came and “quarrelled” with the complainant, her brother, and her parents and threatened them. This Court had occasion to examine the phenomenon of general and omnibus allegations in the cases of matrimonial disputes. In Mamidi Anil Kumar Reddy v. State of A.P. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 127, this Court observed that: “14. …A bare perusal of the complaint, statement of witnesses and the charge sheet show that the allegations against the Appellants are wholly general and omnibus in nature; even if they are taken in their entirety, they do not prima facie make out a case against the Appellants. The material on record neither discloses any particulars of the offences alleged nor discloses the specific role/allegations assigned to any of the Appellants in the commission of the offences. 15. The phenomenon of false implication by way of general omnibus allegations in the course of matrimonial disputes is not unknown to this Court. The material on record neither discloses any particulars of the offences alleged nor discloses the specific role/allegations assigned to any of the Appellants in the commission of the offences. 15. The phenomenon of false implication by way of general omnibus allegations in the course of matrimonial disputes is not unknown to this Court. In Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar, this 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.” xxxx 13.1 In Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599 , this Court noticed the injustice that may be caused when parties are forced to go through tribulations of a trial based on general and omnibus allegations. The relevant portion of the observation is as under: “11. …in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased significantly, and there is greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage now more than ever. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as Section 498-A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives. 18. … upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 1-4-2019, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the appellants. The complainant alleged that “all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy”. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the appellants herein, i.e. none of the appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are, therefore, general and omnibus and can, at best, be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes… However, as far as the appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them, being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution. 21. The allegations are, therefore, general and omnibus and can, at best, be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes… However, as far as the appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them, being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution. 21. …it would be unjust if the appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e. general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this Court in varied instances that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must, therefore, be discouraged.” 18. This position was reiterated in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3682, wherein it was observed: 18. A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by respondent No. 2 are vague and omnibus. Other than claiming that appellant No. 1 harassed her and that appellant Nos. 2 to 6 instigated him to do so, respondent No. 2 has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations. 19. This position was reiterated in Geddam Jhansi v. State of Telangana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 263 wherein it was observed: “31. Invoking criminal process is a serious matter with penal consequences involving coercive measures, which can be permitted only when the specific act(s) which constitute offences punishable under the Penal Code or any other penal statute are alleged or attributed to the accused and a prima facie case is made out. It applies with equal force when criminal laws are invoked in domestic disputes. Criminalising domestic disputes without specific allegations and credible materials to support the same may have disastrous consequences for the institution of family, which is built on the premise of love, affection, cordiality and mutual trust. The institution of family constitutes the core of human society. Domestic relationships, such as those between family members, are guided by deeply ingrained social values and cultural expectations. These relationships are often viewed as sacred, demanding a higher level of respect, commitment, and emotional investment compared to other social or professional associations. The institution of family constitutes the core of human society. Domestic relationships, such as those between family members, are guided by deeply ingrained social values and cultural expectations. These relationships are often viewed as sacred, demanding a higher level of respect, commitment, and emotional investment compared to other social or professional associations. For the aforesaid reason, the preservation of family relationships has always been emphasised. Thus, when family relationships are sought to be brought within the ambit of criminal proceedings rupturing the family bond, courts should be circumspect and judicious and should allow invocation of the criminal process only when there are specific allegations with supporting materials which clearly constitute criminal offences. 32. We have to keep in mind that in the context of matrimonial disputes, emotions run high, and as such in the complaints filed alleging harassment or domestic violence, there may be a tendency to implicate other members of the family who do not come to the rescue of the complainant or remain mute spectators to any alleged incident of harassment, which in our view cannot by itself constitute a criminal act without there being specific acts attributed to them. Further, when tempers run high and relationships turn bitter, there is also a propensity to exaggerate the allegations, which does not necessarily mean that such domestic disputes should be given the colour of criminality. 33. It goes without saying that genuine cases of cruelty and violence in the domestic sphere, which do happen, ought to be handled with utmost sensitivity. Domestic violence typically happens within the four walls of the house and not in the public gaze. Therefore, such violence is not noticed by the public at large, except perhaps by the immediate neighbours. Thus, providing visible evidence by the victim of domestic violence may not be easily forthcoming and producing direct evidence may be hard and arduous, which does not necessarily mean that domestic violence does not occur. In fact, to deal with this pernicious phenomenon, stringent statutes like the Protection from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, have been enacted with very expansive meaning and scope of what amounts to domestic violence. Since violence perpetrated within the domestic sphere by close relatives is now criminalised entailing serious consequences on the perpetrators, the courts have to be careful while dealing with such cases by examining whether there are specific allegations with instances against the perpetrators and not generalised allegations. Since violence perpetrated within the domestic sphere by close relatives is now criminalised entailing serious consequences on the perpetrators, the courts have to be careful while dealing with such cases by examining whether there are specific allegations with instances against the perpetrators and not generalised allegations. The purpose and mandate of the law to protect the victims of domestic violence is of paramount importance, and as such, a balance has to be struck by ensuring that while perpetrators are brought to book, all the family members or relatives are not indiscriminately brought within the criminal net in a sweeping manner. 34. For a matrimonial relationship which is founded on the basis of cordiality and trust to turn sour to an extent to make a partner hurl allegations of domestic violence and harassment against the other partner, would normally not happen at the spur of the moment and such acrimonious relationship would develop only in course of time. Accordingly, such a situation would be the culmination of a series of acts which turn, otherwise an amicable relationship, into a fractured one. Thus, in such cases involving allegations of domestic violence or harassment, there would normally be a series of offending acts, which would be required to be spelt out by the complainant against the perpetrators in specific terms to rope such perpetrators in the criminal proceedings sought to be initiated against them. Thus, mere general allegations of harassment without pointing out the specifics against such perpetrators would not suffice, as is the case in respect of the present appellants. 35. We are, thus, of the view that in criminal cases relating to domestic violence, the complaints and charges should be specific, as far as possible, as against each and every member of the family who is accused of such offences and sought to be prosecuted, as otherwise, it may amount to misuse of the stringent criminal process by indiscriminately dragging all the members of the family. There may be situations where some of the family members or relatives may turn a blind eye to the violence or harassment perpetrated on the victim and may not extend any helping hand to the victim, which does not necessarily mean that they are also perpetrators of domestic violence unless the circumstances clearly indicate their involvement and instigation. There may be situations where some of the family members or relatives may turn a blind eye to the violence or harassment perpetrated on the victim and may not extend any helping hand to the victim, which does not necessarily mean that they are also perpetrators of domestic violence unless the circumstances clearly indicate their involvement and instigation. Hence, implicating all such relatives without making specific allegations and attributing offending acts to them and proceeding against them without prima facie evidence that they were complicit and had actively collaborated with the perpetrators of domestic violence would amount to abuse of the process of law.” 20. In the present case, the informant has specifically mentioned in her complaint made to the police that her husband, her mother-in-law Veena Mahajan, her father-in-law Sushil Mahajan, her sisters-in-law Ruchita, Suchita and Sumila started picking fault in her work. They used to say the informant was ‘Pahadan’ and did not know household chores, the informant did not know how to cook the food and that her parents had not taught her anything. She further stated that Ruchita, Suchita and Sumila used to harass her for doing the household chores and say that nothing was provided to the informant by her parents. They threw Kisan Vikas Patra of Rs.1,00,000/-and demanded Rs.5,00,000/-. She also stated that her husband and other family members did not allow her to go outside her matrimonial home. Her sisters-in-law used to accompany her if ever she went out of her matrimonial home. Her parents-in-law used to say that the size of the ornaments handed over to her was quite small and no ornaments were given to their daughters. She stated that her husband, her parents-in-law and sisters-in-law asked her to bring the money. Her father had provided money on two occasions, she mentioned that on 11.10.2021 she was going to her parental home with Suchita, who dropped her at Shalaghat and she had to call her brother. 21. These allegations are quite specific. They mention the role of each of the accused and the harassment meted out to the informant. Merely because the particulars of date and time were not mentioned is not sufficient to say that allegations are general. The charge sheet shows that allegations made by the informant are duly corroborated by her parents, who stated that Rs.25,000/- was provided after 3-4 months of the marriage. Merely because the particulars of date and time were not mentioned is not sufficient to say that allegations are general. The charge sheet shows that allegations made by the informant are duly corroborated by her parents, who stated that Rs.25,000/- was provided after 3-4 months of the marriage. The informant handed over this money to her husband. The informant’s father also provided Rs. 50,000/- 3-4 years before the date of the date the statement. The informant’s brother stated that she called him on 11.10.2021 to Shalaghat. He took her from Shalaghat to her parental home. This version is also corroborated by Sonu Kumar, the driver. 22. It was submitted that false allegations were made by the informant because she is residing in her parental home and does not want to reside in her matrimonial home. This Court cannot determine the truthfulness or falsity of the allegations because it is a matter of trial to be adjudicated by the learned Trial Court where the matter is pending. This position was laid down in Maneesha Yadav v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 643 wherein it was held: - “13. As has already been observed hereinabove, the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint at the stage of quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P.C. However, the allegations made in the FIR/complaint, if taken at its face value, must disclose the commission of an offence and make out a case against the accused. At the cost of repetition, in the present case, the allegations made in the FIR/complaint even if taken at its face value, do not disclose the commission of an offence or make out a case against the accused. We are of the considered view that the present case would fall under Category-3 of the categories enumerated by this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra) 14. We may gainfully refer to the observations of this Court in the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home (2019) 11 SCC 706 : 2018 INSC 1060 “ 14. First, we would like to deal with the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 2 that once the charge sheet is filed, the petition for quashing of FIR is untenable. First, we would like to deal with the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 2 that once the charge sheet is filed, the petition for quashing of FIR is untenable. We do not see any merit in this submission, keeping in mind the position of this Court in Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat [Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 7 SCC 59: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23] . In Joseph Salvaraj A. [Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 7 SCC 59: (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 23], this Court while deciding the question of whether the High Court could entertain the Section 482 petition for quashing of FIR when the charge-sheet was filed by the police during the pendency of the Section 482 petition, observed : (SCC p. 63, para 16) “16. Thus, the general conspectus of the various sections under which the appellant is being charged and is to be prosecuted would show that the same are not made out even prima facie from the complainant's FIR. Even if the charge sheet had been filed, the learned Single Judge [ Joesph Saivaraj A. v. State of Gujarat, 2007 SCC OnLine Guj 365 ] could have still examined whether the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant were prima facie made out from the complainant's FIR, charge-sheet, documents, etc. or not.” 23. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharambeer Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2025) 1 SCC 392 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1894 that the Court cannot conduct a mini- trial while exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of CrPC. It was observed at page 397: “17. This Court in a series of judgments has held that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the High Court is not supposed to hold a mini-trial. A profitable reference can be made to the judgment in CBI v. Aryan Singh [CBI v. Aryan Singh, (2023) 18 SCC 399 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379 ]. The relevant paragraph from the judgment is extracted hereunder: (SCC paras 6-7) “6. … As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482CrPC, the Court is not required to conduct the mini-trial. … 7. The relevant paragraph from the judgment is extracted hereunder: (SCC paras 6-7) “6. … As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482CrPC, the Court is not required to conduct the mini-trial. … 7. … At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482CrPC, the Court has very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider ‘whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not’.” 24. Hence, it is not permissible for the Court to go into the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR. 25. A charge sheet has been filed before the Court. The learned Trial Court is seized of the matter. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Iqbal v. State of U.P. , (2023) 8 SCC 734: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 949 that when the charge sheet has been filed, learned Trial Court should be left to appreciate the same. It was observed: “At the same time, we also take notice of the fact that the investigation has been completed and charge-sheet is ready to be filed. Although the allegations levelled in the FIR do not inspire any confidence particularly in the absence of any specific date, time, etc. of the alleged offences, we are of the view that the appellants should prefer a discharge application before the trial court under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). We say so because even according to the State, the investigation is over and the charge sheet is ready to be filed before the competent court. In such circumstances, the trial court should be allowed to look into the materials which the investigating officer might have collected forming part of the charge sheet. If any such discharge application is filed, the trial court shall look into the materials and take a call whether any discharge case is made out or not.” 26. The FIR discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, and it cannot be quashed at this stage. 27. Consequently, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. 28. The observations made hereinbefore shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.