$~52 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 8396/2023 & CRL.M.A. 31349/2023 DR GYAN SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. R. K. Jain, Adv. versus STATE GNCTD & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for State. Mr. Surinder Singh & Mr. Saurabh Mathur, Advocates for Respondent No.2 along with Respondent No.2 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 22.07.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.') seeking quashing of FIR No. 139/2021 registered at Police Station Rajouri Garden for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC'), along with the chargesheet and all consequential proceedings pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court-04), West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi titled State v. Dr. Gyan Singh & Anr.. 3. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 30.10.1995 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies, and one son was born out of the wedlock, who is now settled in Mumbai. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 12:02:43 Pursuant to a complaint lodged by respondent No.2, the present FIR came to be registered against the petitioner under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC. During the pendency of the petitioner's anticipatory bail application, the parties were referred to mediation, where respondent No.2 stated that she was residing happily with the petitioner and had no subsisting grievance. She also made a statement to the police to the same effect. Thereafter, a chargesheet came to be filed. During the hearing on charge on 15.09.2023, the learned APP submitted that no case under Section 406 IPC was made out against the petitioner and that no case under Sections 498A/406 IPC was made out against co-accused Savita, while seeking framing of charge only under Section 498A IPC against the petitioner. The learned Trial Court granted time to the petitioner to seek quashing of the FIR before this Court. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the allegations levelled against the petitioner are vague and general in nature. He submits that both the parties are residing in the same house and the petitioner is maintaining respondent No.2 and bearing all her expenses. He further submits that no offence under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC is made out against the petitioner. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon Bhaskar Lal Sharma & Anr. v. Monika 2009 (10) SCC 604. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent, who appears through Video Conferencing, submits that the petitioner is merely harping upon a solitary sentence in the statement of respondent No.2, wherein she had stated that they were living happily, and on the strength of the said statement has filed the present petition seeking quashing of the FIR. He submits that although both the parties are residing in the same house, they are not on talking terms. He This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 12:02:43 further submits that the petitioner is not providing any financial support to respondent No.2 and that it is her parents and brother who are bearing her maintenance expenses. He, therefore, submits that no ground for quashing is made out. 6. Learned APP for the State also submits that the allegations made in the complaint and the averments made in the present petition raise disputed questions of fact, which cannot be decided without the parties leading evidence. He, therefore, submits that the present petition seeking quashing deserves to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR primarily on the ground that the allegations are vague and general in nature and that both the parties are residing in the same house. It is also submitted that respondent no. 2 had, at one stage, stated that she was residing happily with the petitioner and, therefore, no offence under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC is made out. 9. The aforesaid contentions cannot be accepted at this stage. The parties have taken conflicting stands with regard to the allegations forming the subject matter of the present petition. Whether the parties are residing together, whether the petitioner is maintaining respondent No.2 and whether the allegations satisfy the ingredients of the offences alleged are all questions of fact, which can be determined only upon appreciation of evidence during trial and cannot be gone into while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 10. The mere fact that respondent No.2, on one occasion, stated that she was residing happily with the petitioner does not, by itself, constitute a ground for quashing the FIR, particularly when she has opposed the present petition. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 12:02:43 11. At this stage, this Court is only required to examine whether the allegations in the complaint disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The correctness or otherwise of the rival claims is a matter to be considered by the learned Trial Court. 12. This Court, therefore, finds no ground to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The present petition is accordingly dismissed. 13. Nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. 14. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J JULY 22, 2026/b/Av This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/07/2026 at 12:02:43