$~76 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010379122026 + CRL.M.C. 6002/2026 AMAN IQBAL & ORS .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Sunil Dalal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ankur Gogia, Ms. Kajal Bhatia, Advs. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, APP with Ms. Kalpana Jha and Mr. Siddharth Shankar, Advs. SI - Vikram Singh, PS - Welcome. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 17.08.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CRL.M.A. 25019/2026 2. Allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. CRL.M.C 6002/2026 & CRL.M.A. 25018/2026 3. By way of the present petition instituted under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'BNSS'), the petitioners seek quashing, qua them, of Charge Sheet No. 817304522027801/2022 dated 11.11.2023, filed in connection with FIR No. 278/2022 dated 09.04.2022, registered at Police Station Welcome, District North East, Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 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 19/08/2026 at 12:00:45 ‘Dowry Act’). The said charge-sheet has resulted in the registration of Criminal Case No. 1213/2024, titled State v. Shahnawaz Iqbal & Ors., stated to be pending before the learned JMFC (Mahila Court-01), Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. BRIEF FACTUAL MATRIX 4. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that respondent no. 2 was married to Mr. Md. Shahnawaz Iqbal on 27.07.2016 in accordance with Muslim rites and customs. The petitioners are the parents, siblings and sister-in-law of the husband. 5. Matrimonial disputes subsequently arose between the parties. Respondent no. 2 lodged a complaint alleging that her husband and the petitioners had subjected her to mental and physical cruelty; demanded the gold and silver articles given at the time of marriage, as well as an expensive four-wheeler; and assaulted and confined her upon her refusal to meet those demands. It was further alleged that the petitioners supported the conduct attributed to her husband and participated in the harassment meted out to her. Insofar as petitioner no. 5 is concerned, respondent no. 2 specifically alleged that he had supported her husband in matters relating to her immovable property and the divorce proceedings and had, along with her husband, turned her out of their office. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the aforementioned FIR came to be registered. During the course of the investigation, the petitioners joined the investigation pursuant to notices issued under Section 41A Cr.P.C. Upon completion of the investigation, Charge Sheet No. 817304522027801/2022 was filed against the husband and the present petitioners. 7. Aggrieved by the filing of the aforesaid charge-sheet qua them, 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 19/08/2026 at 12:00:45 petitioners have preferred the present petition seeking its quashing. SUBMISSIONS BY PARTIES 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been implicated solely by virtue of their relationship with the husband. He submits that the Supreme Court, as well as the Coordinate Benches of this Court, have repeatedly deprecated the tendency to implicate every member of the husband's family in matrimonial disputes on the basis of general and omnibus allegations. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that neither the complaint nor the charge-sheet attributes any specific role or overt act to the petitioners. That no incident has been identified with particulars as to its date, time or place, nor is there any material on record corroborating the allegations against the petitioners. It is also submitted that the petitioners resided separately and had no involvement in the matrimonial affairs of respondent no. 2 and her husband. 10. Drawing attention to the relevant portions of the charge-sheet, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the substantive allegations are directed against the husband. According to him, the petitioners have been referred to only in general terms, without any specific material connecting them with the alleged offences. 11. The learned counsel further submits that the mere fact that the proceedings before the learned Trial Court have reached the stage of framing of charge does not denude this Court of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. It is submitted that the filing of the charge-sheet and the listing of the matter for consideration on charge neither renders the present petition infructuous nor bars the exercise of such jurisdiction. 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 19/08/2026 at 12:00:45 12. It is further submitted that, in the absence of any specific allegation or supporting material, compelling the petitioners to undergo a criminal trial would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 13. In support of the submissions advanced, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the decisions in Shashi Arora v. State 2025:DHC:9642 and Sushil Kumar Purbey and Others v. State of Bihar 2026 INSC 212, copies whereof were handed over in Court. 14. Per contra, learned APP for the State opposes the petition and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed and that the matter is now fixed before the learned Trial Court for framing of charge on 18.08.2026. 15. Learned APP for the State further submits that the contentions concerning the absence of a specific role, the sufficiency of the material collected during the investigation and the applicability of the offences alleged can be urged by the petitioners before the learned Trial Court at the stage of consideration on charge. It is, therefore, submitted that no ground is made out for interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction at this stage. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 16. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned APP for the state and perused the material placed on record before this court. 17. The principal issue which arises for consideration is whether the complaint, read with the charge-sheet and the material collected during investigation, discloses a prima facie case against the petitioners, or whether the allegations against them are merely general and omnibus, warranting quashing of the charge-sheet qua them in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS. 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 19/08/2026 at 12:00:45 18. The inherent power of the High Court is undoubtedly of wide amplitude. Its width, however, is accompanied by the requirement that it be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. At the stage of quashing, the Court is required to examine whether the allegations and the material collected during investigation, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of an offence. The Court does not conduct a mini-trial, weigh the evidence or determine whether the prosecution would ultimately result in conviction. 19. The submission that the filing of a charge-sheet, or the matter having reached the stage of consideration on charge, does not denude this Court of its inherent jurisdiction is unexceptionable. The availability of the jurisdiction, however, cannot be conflated with the existence of a case for its exercise. Even after a charge-sheet has been filed, interference is warranted only where the uncontroverted allegations and the material relied upon by the prosecution fail to disclose any offence, or where continuation of the proceedings would otherwise amount to a manifest abuse of process. 20. In Taramani Parakh v. State of M.P., (2015) 11 SCC 260, the Supreme Court held that, though caution is required where omnibus allegations are made against relatives in matrimonial disputes, quashing is impermissible where the complaint, read as a whole, discloses a triable case. Whether the allegations of cruelty and unlawful demands are true is a matter for trial, and decisions granting relief to relatives do not lay down an inflexible rule divorced from the facts of each case. 21. More recently, in Muskan v. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya) and Others, 2025 INSC 1287, the Supreme Court set aside an order quashing proceedings arising from allegations of cruelty and dowry demands. It was held that, where 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 19/08/2026 at 12:00:45 the complaints and the FIR, read conjointly, disclosed a prima facie case, the High Court could not assess the credibility of the allegations or treat the particulars subsequently furnished as an afterthought or a counterblast, since such an exercise would amount to a mini-trial. 22. In the present case, the complaint cannot be read in isolated fragments. Read as a whole, the allegations are not confined exclusively to the husband. The allegations relate, inter alia, to continuing matrimonial cruelty and a common demand allegedly made by members of the matrimonial family. In such circumstances, the absence of a separate date and time for every act attributed to every accused cannot, by itself, be treated as sufficient to efface the prosecution at its threshold. A collective allegation does not become legally infirm merely because each participant's conduct has not been reduced to an atomised, incident-wise narration, particularly when the nature of the alleged demand and harassment has been identified. 23. The charge-sheet has been filed upon completion of investigation and is accompanied by the statements of the complainant and other witnesses, as well as documents concerning the marriage and the articles claimed as stridhan. It cannot, therefore, be held at this stage that there is no material whatsoever connecting the petitioners with the allegations. Whether such material is reliable, whether entrustment or demand is proved against each petitioner, and whether the ingredients of the offences are ultimately established are matters for consideration by the learned Trial Court on the basis of the material before it. 24. The plea that the petitioners were residing separately and had no concern with the matrimonial affairs of the parties raises a disputed question of fact. The same is true of the petitioners' reliance upon the complaints and 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 19/08/2026 at 12:00:45 proceedings instituted by them against respondent no. 2. Such defence material cannot be accepted as conclusive at this stage so as to undertake a comparative assessment of the rival versions in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS. 25. The reliance placed upon Shashi Arora (supra) and Sushil Kumar Purbey (supra) is misplaced. Both decisions turned on the absence of any prima facie material or individual role against the relatives concerned. In the present case, the complaint, read with the charge-sheet, attributes participation to the petitioners in the alleged cruelty and unlawful demands, besides assigning a specific role to petitioner no. 5. The sufficiency and probative value of the material cannot be assessed in the present proceedings, as such an exercise would entail a meticulous appreciation of the evidence beyond the scope of Section 528 of the BNSS. 26. Therefore, the present case does not fall within the exceptional category in which the criminal proceedings deserve to be interdicted at the threshold. 27. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 28. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court for necessary information and compliance. 29. It is clarified that the observations contained herein are confined to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. 30. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith MADHU JAIN, J AUGUST 17, 2026/PG 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 19/08/2026 at 12:00:45