$~67 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 4956/2026 HITESH MEHTA & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Tushar Saxena, Mr. Rakshit Sharma, Ms. Riya Advani, Mr. Hitesh Mehta, Advs. Petitioner No. 1-in-person (through VC) versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, APP for State. Mr. Manan and Mr. Naman Tyagi, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 17.07.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CRL.M.A. 20787/2026 (for exemption) 2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. CRL.M.C. 4956/2026 & CRL.M.A. 20786/2026 3. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1873 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’) read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BNSS') seeking quashing on merits of FIR No. 617/2022, registered at Police Station K.N. Katju Marg for the offence punishable under Section 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom qua 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 21/07/2026 at 10:59:27 the order dated 31.01.2025 passed by the Court of JMFC (Mahila Court-01), North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in CR. Case. 37714/2024. 4. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the marriage between the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were solemnised in the year 2016 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Out of the said wedlock, one male child, namely Master Shaurya, was born. Differences arose between the parties, pursuant to which Respondent No. 2 left the matrimonial home in the year 2021. Thereafter, she lodged a complaint dated 20.07.2022 before the ACP, CAW Cell, Rohini alleging acts of cruelty by the petitioners. 5. Pursuant to the said complaint, FIR No. 617/2022 came to be registered at Police Station K.N. Katju Marg under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC. Upon completion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed before the learned Trial Court. Vide order dated 31.01.2025, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Mahila Court-01), North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi took cognizance of the offences and summoned the petitioners in Criminal Case No. 37714/2024 arising out of the aforesaid FIR. 6. It is further the case of the petitioners that, apart from the present proceedings, several litigations were pending between the parties, including proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, maintenance proceedings, execution proceedings, guardianship proceedings and other connected matrimonial proceedings. Petitioner No. 1 had also instituted a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'HMA’) seeking restitution of conjugal rights, which came to be dismissed by the learned Family Court vide order dated 13.12.2023. 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 21/07/2026 at 10:59:27 7. Aggrieved by the registration of FIR No. 617/2022, the filing of the chargesheet and the order dated 31.01.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioners have preferred the present petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations made by Respondent No. 2 in her complaint against the petitioners are false. He further submits that the allegation that the Alto car was purchased by the parents of Respondent No. 2 is also incorrect, as the payment for the said vehicle was made by Petitioner No. 1 from his own account. 9. Issue notice. 10. Learned APP for the State, who appears on advance notice, submits that at the stage of summoning, the Court is only required to examine whether a prima facie case is made out. He further submits that the contentions raised by the petitioners involve disputed questions of fact and not law, which cannot be decided without the parties leading evidence during the course of trial. 11. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations of cruelty are false and that the claim regarding the Alto car, attributed by Respondent No. 2 to her parents, is incorrect, as the payment was made by Petitioner No. 1 from his own account. 13. Whether the vehicle was in fact paid for by the petitioners’ side or by Respondent No. 2’s parents and whether the conduct alleged amounts to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A IPC are matters that cannot be resolved on the record as it stands. They would require bank statements, ownership documents, the parties’ respective versions to be placed on record and tested at trial. The learned Magistrate has already taken cognizance and summoned the petitioners by a reasoned order dated 31.01.2025, and it is for 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 21/07/2026 at 10:59:27 the Trial Court, not this Court in a Section 482 petition, to examine these factual disputes. 14. At the summoning stage, the Court’s enquiry is confined to whether a prima facie case is made out, and does not extend to weighing disputed facts and conduct a mini trial. The chargesheet discloses the ingredients of the offences alleged, and the petitioners’ defence, however genuine, is a matter for evidence at trial. 15. The jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be invoked lightly. This Court, at this stage, is not called upon to appreciate the evidence or to determine whether the allegations levelled by the complainant are true or false. Nor can the material now relied upon by the petitioners in their defence be used by this Court to return findings on facts that remain in dispute, in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. 16. Having considered the material placed on record, this Court finds no ground to exercise its inherent jurisdiction for quashing FIR No. 617/2022 or the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. 17. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 18. Nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. 19. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J JULY 17, 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 21/07/2026 at 10:59:27