$~34 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 1712/2025, CRL.M.A. 7706/2025, CRL.M.A. 15147/2025, CRL.M.A. 21220/2025 AAKASH SACHDEVA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Manoranjan and Ms. Aditi, Advs. versus STATE (GOVT OF NCT) & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP for State. Mr. Sudhanshu Sikka, Ms. Nancy Thapar, Mr. Himanshu Maan, Ms.Anjali Mathur, Advs. For R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 08.07.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS’) seeking quashing of FIR No. 857/2016 registered at Police Station Seemapuri under Sections 498A/406/34 India Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 3. Brief facts are that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.2/complainant was solemnized on 20.02.2015 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Subsequently, matrimonial disputes arose between the parties, pursuant to which the complainant approached the Crime Against 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 13/07/2026 at 16:11:34 Women Cell by filing a complaint dated 07.04.2016. Thereafter, another complaint dated 22.04.2016 was submitted containing further allegations against the petitioner and his family members. Based upon the said complaint, the present FIR came to be registered. 4. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner, his father and his mother for offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC. At the stage of consideration of charge, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, vide order dated 31.08.2023, discharged the petitioner’s parents from the offences under Sections 498A/406 IPC and also discharged the petitioner of the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC. However, the learned Trial Court found that the allegations against the petitioner-husband, particularly those relating to mental and physical cruelty, disclosed a prima facie offence under Section 498A IPC and accordingly directed framing of charge against him. 5. The petitioner challenged the said order before the learned Revisional Court. The Revision Petition was dismissed, with the learned Revisional Court affirming the findings of the Trial Court that the material on record disclosed sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioner for the offence under Section 498A IPC. 6. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition seeking quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the complainant had initially lodged a complaint dated 07.04.2016, wherein no allegations constituting offences under Sections 498A or 406 IPC were made. According to the petitioner, despite the said complaint, no FIR was registered. 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 13/07/2026 at 16:11:34 It is argued that the complainant thereafter submitted a second complaint dated 22.04.2016 containing materially improved allegations, including allegations relating to demand of dowry, solely with a view to bring the case within the ambit of Section 498A IPC, and it was only on the basis of the subsequent complaint that the impugned FIR came to be registered. 8. Learned counsel further submits that even if the allegations contained in both the complaints are accepted in their entirety, the essential ingredients of Section 498A IPC are not made out. It is contended that the allegations pertain merely to normal wear and tear of matrimonial life and do not disclose any conduct of such gravity as would amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A IPC. 9. It is also contended that while discharging the petitioner’s parents, the learned Trial Court itself recorded that there were material improvements in the subsequent complaint. Having recorded such a finding, the learned Trial Court ought to have extended the same benefit to the petitioner on the principle of parity. According to learned counsel, the petitioner could not have been treated differently once the Court had accepted that the subsequent complaint contained improvements over the original complaint. 10. Reliance is placed upon various judicial precedents, including Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam., AIRONLINE 2009 SC12 and State of Andhra Pradesh v. Punati Ramulu., AIR 1993 SC 2644,, to contend that vague allegations and subsequent improvements cannot form the basis of criminal prosecution under Section 498A IPC. 11. Per contra, learned APP appearing for the State opposes the petition and submits that both the learned Trial Court and the learned Revisional Court have examined the contentions now sought to be urged before this Court. 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 13/07/2026 at 16:11:34 12. It is submitted that even the first complaint contains specific allegations against the petitioner regarding continuous harassment, repeated taunts, restrictions imposed upon the complainant's interaction with her family and friends, physical assault, suspicion regarding her conduct, coercive behaviour and other acts causing mental cruelty. These allegations, according to the prosecution, prima facie satisfy the ingredients of Section 498A IPC. The subsequent complaint may contain additional allegations; however, the existence of additional averments cannot obliterate the allegations already contained in the first complaint. 13. Learned APP further submits that the discharge of the petitioner’s parents does not automatically entitle the petitioner to discharge. The allegations against the husband stand on an entirely different footing and are considerably more specific. It is further contended that the scope of interference under Section 528 BNSS is extremely limited and the petitioner seeks, in effect, a re-appreciation of the material already considered by two competent courts. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 15. A perusal of the order on charge reveals that the learned Trial Court has independently analysed both complaints. While noticing that allegations relating to demand of ₹25 lakhs were absent in the earlier complaint, the learned Trial Court simultaneously found that even the first complaint contained specific allegations against the petitioner-husband regarding repeated taunts, physical assault, restrictions upon the complainant’s interaction with her family, suspicious behaviour and continuous mental harassment. It was on the basis of these allegations that the learned Trial Court 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 13/07/2026 at 16:11:34 concluded that a prima facie case under Section 498A IPC was made out against the petitioner. 16. The learned Revisional Court has also considered the petitioner’s submission regarding alleged improvements in the subsequent complaint and affirmed the findings of the learned Trial Court. It observed that the question whether certain allegations constitute improvements or embellishments is essentially a matter of appreciation of evidence and cannot be conclusively determined at the stage of framing of charge. 17. The contention of the petitioner that the subsequent complaint contains material improvements also does not merit acceptance at this stage. Even assuming that certain allegations have been elaborated or supplemented in the subsequent complaint, the same would not, by itself, justify quashing of the proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order in SLP(Crl) No. 9552/2021, titled Hazrat Deen v. State of Uttar Pradesh, has held that discrepancies between the FIR and a subsequent statement may constitute a defence available to the accused; however, such discrepancies cannot be made a ground for discharge without the trial being conducted. The Court observed that the veracity and effect of such discrepancies are matters to be examined during the course of evidence and not at the threshold. 18. The submission regarding parity is equally misconceived. The parents of the petitioner were discharged primarily because the allegations against them were found to be general and omnibus in nature, whereas the allegations against the petitioner-husband were direct, specific and related to his personal conduct towards the complainant. The principle of parity cannot be mechanically invoked where the role attributed to the accused persons is materially different. 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 13/07/2026 at 16:11:34 19. It is also well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, this Court does not undertake appreciation of evidence or examine the probable defence of the accused. Where the material collected during investigation discloses a prima facie case and the orders passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Revisional Court do not suffer from any patent illegality or perversity, interference under the inherent jurisdiction is unwarranted. 20. In the present case, both the learned Revisional Court and the learned Trial court have assigned cogent reasons for proceeding against the petitioner under Section 498A IPC. No exceptional circumstance has been pointed out warranting exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the proceedings. 21. Accordingly, I find no merit in the present petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. 22. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J. JULY 8, 2026/prg/P 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 13/07/2026 at 16:11:34