$~74 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010351032026 + CRL.M.C. 5596/2026 NEETU RAJORA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shashwat Sarin, Ms. Barkha Gulia, Advs. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for State. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 04.08.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CRL.M.A. 23350/2026 (for exemption) 2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application is disposed of. CRL.M.C. 5596/2026 & CRL.M.A. 23351/2026 3. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter, ‘BNSS’) on behalf of the petitioner, Neetu Rajora, seeking quashing of FIR No. 1464/2023, registered at Police Station Nihal Vihar, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, ‘IPC’), the chargesheet as well as the supplementary chargesheet dated 30.09.2024, filed in case titled “State v. Himanshu Rajora & Ors.”, pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, and all consequent proceedings emanating therefrom qua the petitioner, including the orders dated 02.04.2024, 05.11.2024 and 19.03.2025, whereby the learned Trial 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 05/08/2026 at 11:33:05 Court took cognizance of the chargesheet(s) and summoned the petitioner herein. 4. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the deceased, Priya Kumari, and the co-accused Himanshu Rajora was solemnized on 14.11.2021. It is alleged that, from the very inception of the marriage the deceased was subjected to persistent cruelty, harassment, physical assault, and demands for dowry by her husband and his family members, including the present petitioner, who is the wife of the elder brother- in-law (jeth) of the deceased. 5. It is further alleged that the deceased was compelled to hand over her salary, was denied adequate food and sleep and was subjected to physical abuse. On the intervening night of 14/15.11.2023, the deceased was found hanging from the ceiling fan of her matrimonial residence. Pursuant to the statements of the deceased’s mother and brother recorded by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, FIR No. 1464/2023 came to be registered under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 IPC. During investigation, a charge-sheet dated 13.03.2024 was initially filed against the husband of the deceased. Thereafter, on the basis of further investigation, a supplementary charge-sheet dated 30.09.2024 was filed arraigning the present petitioner along with other family members as accused. Consequent thereto, the learned Trial Court took cognizance and summoned the petitioner to face trial. taken cognizance of by the learned Trial Court on 02.04.2024. 6. Aggrieved by the continuation of the criminal proceedings against her, the petitioner has approached this Court 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is only the married sister-in-law (jethani) of the deceased, and has no specific role to play in the alleged incident. It is submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are general, vague and omnibus in nature, made only by virtue of her being a 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 05/08/2026 at 11:33:05 family member of the husband, and are wholly insufficient to sustain prosecution under Sections 498-A/304-B IPC. 8. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors., (2025) 3 Supreme Court Cases 735, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court deprecated the practice of implicating extended family members of the husband on the strength of sweeping and unspecific allegations in matrimonial cruelty cases, and reiterated the need for courts to scrutinise the specificity and plausibility of the allegations before permitting prosecution to continue against such relatives. 9. Learned APP for the State opposes the petition and submits that the allegations against the petitioner are not vague or omnibus, but specific and identifiable as against her, both in the statements recorded during investigation and in the written complaint dated 22.05.2023 addressed by the deceased herself to the police prior to her death, as well as in the FIR itself. 10. It is submitted that the material collected during investigation, including the chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet, discloses a specific and continuing role attributed to the petitioner in the harassment and cruelty meted out to the deceased, and that the learned Trial Court, after appreciation of the said material, has already taken cognizance and summoned the petitioner. It is submitted that the question of the truthfulness or otherwise of these specific allegations is a matter for trial and cannot be adjudicated in the summary jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: 11. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 12. The power of quashing under Section 528 BNSS, being in pari materia with the erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is to 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 05/08/2026 at 11:33:05 be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, only in cases where the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose commission of any offence, or where the continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. The parameters governing exercise of this jurisdiction, as laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692, do not contemplate a mini-trial or a weighing of the probative value of evidence at this stage. The materials relied upon by the defence must be of an unimpeachable and sterling quality, such that they demonstrate the falsity of the allegations on their very face. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors., (2025) 3 SCC 735, has cautioned courts against permitting continuation of criminal proceedings under Sections 498-A/34 IPC against extended relatives of the husband where the allegations are general, sweeping and made without specific particulars, observing that such omnibus implication of relatives, often residing separately and having no direct nexus with the day-to-day matrimonial affairs of the complainant amounts to abuse of the process of law. The said principle, however, is attracted only where the allegations on a plain reading are vague, general and unparticularised. 14. In the present case, this Court finds that the allegations are not of omnibus character. The written complaint dated 22.05.2023, addressed by the deceased herself to the police prior to her death as also the FIR and the statements of the complainant and the mother of the deceased recorded during investigation, allege that the deceased's sister-in-law, brother-in-law, mother- in-law, and father-in-law all used to beat her and demand money from her parents and that she was denied adequate rest and forced to perform household labour under threat and duress. 15. The petitioner is the only married sister-in-law (jethani) of the 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 05/08/2026 at 11:33:05 deceased, and the aforesaid allegation is accordingly identifiable and attributable as against her, notwithstanding that she has not been referred to by name in that particular passage. This is a specific, particularised allegation of conduct going beyond a mere omnibus reference to “family members” or “in-laws” and does not in the opinion of this Court, partake of the vague and unspecific character deprecated in Dara Lakshmi Narayana (supra). 16. Whether the said allegations are ultimately established or not, and whether the petitioner in fact participated in the alleged acts of cruelty and harassment, are questions that necessarily require an appreciation of evidence, which is to be done by the learned Trial Court and cannot be pre-empted at the stage of a quashing petition. 17. The learned Trial Court has, upon consideration of the chargesheet and the material collected during investigation, already taken cognizance of the offences and summoned the petitioner vide orders dated 02.04.2024, 05.11.2024 and 19.03.2025. No infirmity, illegality or abuse of process has been demonstrated in the said orders warranting interference by this Court. 18. This Court is also mindful that offences under Section 304-B IPC pertaining to dowry death require an examination of cruelty or harassment "soon before death" in connection with demand for dowry, which is essentially a matter of evidence and inference to be drawn upon a full-fledged trial, and cannot be determined on the basis of a summary appraisal of the record at the quashing stage. 19. Equally, the submission that the petitioner was residing separately cannot be accepted as a ground for quashing the proceedings at this stage. Whether the petitioner was, in fact, residing separately and whether she had any role in the events leading to the death of the deceased are disputed questions of fact which can only be determined upon appreciation of evidence during trial. Such factual controversies cannot be adjudicated in proceedings 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 05/08/2026 at 11:33:05 invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 20. In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition. The allegations against the petitioner being specific, and the material on record disclosing, prima facie, her role in the alleged offences, no case for quashing of the FIR, the chargesheet(s), or the consequent summoning orders is made out. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove are only for the limited purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The learned Trial Court shall proceed with the trial uninfluenced by any of the observations made herein. 21. Accordingly, the present petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. 22. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J AUGUST 4, 2026//b/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 05/08/2026 at 11:33:05