The jurisprudence on matrimonial prosecutions has settled one filter beyond argument: relatives of the husband cannot be sent to trial on allegations that name everyone and describe no one. On 22 September 2026, Justice Soni Shrivastava of the Patna High Court, in Jaikishan Yadav @ Jay Kishon Yadav v. State of Bihar, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 47297 of 2024, applied that filter to quash a cognizance order of 9 February 2022 against members of a husband’s family accused of harassing and ousting the complainant from her matrimonial home, holding that continuing the proceedings “would amount to an abuse of process of law.”
The case
The complainant alleged harassment and ouster from her matrimonial home, and the machinery responded at full breadth: an FIR under Sections 341, 323, 498A, 307 and 349 IPC with the Dowry Prohibition Act added, and cognizance taken against the husband’s family members. The petitioners’ challenge did not ask the High Court to disbelieve the complainant; it asked the Court to read the complaint — and to notice that, as against them, it said everything in general and nothing in particular.
The Court’s reasoning
No specific role attributed. The accusations against the petitioners were general and omnibus in nature; no individual act of cruelty, assault or demand was assigned to any of them.
The matrimonial backdrop. The record carried the signature context of such prosecutions — a live matrimonial dispute, including Section 9 HMA proceedings — against which collective implication of the household invites scrutiny.
Abuse of process. On that material, the Court held that continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of process of law, and quashed the cognizance order of 9 February 2022 along with the prosecution arising from it as against them.
The wider doctrine
The decision walks a well-worn path. The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned against the reflexive arraignment of a husband’s relatives in matrimonial prosecutions, requiring specific allegations disclosing each accused’s active involvement before process issues. High Courts apply that discipline at three checkpoints: cognizance and summoning, charge, and quashing petitions under the inherent power — now Section 528 of the BNSS. The test is textual and individual: for each named accused, does the complaint disclose that person’s own conduct constituting the offence? Where the answer is a collective adjective, the case fails for that accused.
Under the current codes, Section 498A IPC corresponds to Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, with the same essential ingredients; the omnibus-allegation jurisprudence transfers undiminished. Complainants’ advocates should treat it as a drafting instruction: date-wise, actor-wise incidents survive scrutiny; household-wide narration invites quashing and weakens the case even against the principal accused.
Practice notes
The takeaway
Jaikishan Yadav enforces the boundary that keeps Section 498A’s protective purpose credible: the provision exists to punish cruelty, not proximity. Prosecutions survive for those against whom the complaint actually speaks; for the rest of the household, general and omnibus narration ends where it always should — in quashing.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What were the allegations and charges?
The FIR alleged torture of the complainant in her matrimonial home, invoking Sections 341, 323, 498A, 307, 349 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; the record also reflected the matrimonial backdrop of proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioners — the husband’s family members — contended that the accusations against them were general and omnibus, with no specific role attributed to any of them individually.
What does “general and omnibus” mean in this context?
Allegations that sweep an entire household into the case with collective verbs — “all the accused tortured and demanded” — without stating who did what, when and how. Courts treat such pleading as a hallmark of over-implication in matrimonial disputes, because cruelty by specific persons is provable only through specific acts.
Why does the absence of specific roles justify quashing?
Because process against an accused must rest on material disclosing that accused’s own offence. Where the complaint’s text assigns no individual act to a relative, there is nothing for that relative to answer, and compelling attendance at a criminal trial becomes harassment — the abuse of process that inherent jurisdiction exists to prevent.
Does this ruling protect husbands too?
The omnibus-allegation principle chiefly protects relatives drawn into the case by proximity. Allegations against the husband are usually specific by nature of the relationship and are tested separately; quashing for one set of accused does not by itself terminate the case against others facing particularised accusations.