Section 482 CrPC can be invoked at a later stage; omnibus allegations against husband's relatives are insufficient in matrimonial complaints.

High Court inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised even after charge-sheet or during trial, so a petition does not become infructuous merely because proceedings have advanced. In matrimonial complaints, relatives of the husband cannot be proceeded against on the basis of general or omnibus allegations; specific material showing each relative's role is required. On the facts stated, the proceeding was sustained against the husband because the material against him was not equally vague, but the cognizance order and criminal proceeding were quashed as against the other relatives to prevent abuse of process.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 becomes infructuous merely because the trial has progressed to a later stage. (ii) Whether the cognizance order and the resulting criminal proceeding could be sustained against the husband and his relatives when the complaint and preliminary statements disclosed no specific role against the relatives.

Issue (i): Whether a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 becomes infructuous merely because the trial has progressed to a later stage.

Analysis: The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is not confined to the initial stage of the case. It may be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of court or to secure the ends of justice even after charge-sheet, framing of charge, or during the progress of trial, so long as the matter has not reached the stage where appeal against judgment is the appropriate remedy.

Conclusion: The petition did not become infructuous merely because the trial had advanced; the High Court could still examine the matter under Section 482.

Issue (ii): Whether the cognizance order and the resulting criminal proceeding could be sustained against the husband and his relatives when the complaint and preliminary statements disclosed no specific role against the relatives.

Analysis: In complaints arising out of matrimonial discord, relatives of the husband cannot be summoned on the basis of general and omnibus allegations. The complaint and the statements recorded in inquiry disclosed no specific allegation against the brothers of the husband, while the husband stood on a different footing because the material against him was not equally vague. The court found that allowing the proceeding to continue against the relatives, in the absence of specific material, would amount to abuse of the process of court.

Conclusion: The cognizance order and the criminal proceeding were quashed as against petitioners 2 to 5, but were upheld against petitioner 1, the husband.

Final Conclusion: The inherent jurisdiction was affirmed as maintainable at the present stage, and the challenge succeeded only in part by setting aside the proceeding against the relatives while leaving it intact against the husband.

Ratio Decidendi: In a matrimonial complaint, continuation of criminal proceedings against relatives of the husband requires specific material showing their individual role; general or omnibus allegations are insufficient, and the High Court may still exercise Section 482 jurisdiction at a later stage to prevent abuse of process.

---