CRL.M.C.6551/2026 $~76 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010417032026 + CRL.M.C. 6551/2026 & CRL.M.A. 27380/2026, CRL.M.A. 27381/2026 MANOJ KUMAR & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Lakshay Manchanda and Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advs. versus STATE OF GNCTD OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 07.09.2026 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. 765/2023 dated, registered at Police Station Bindapur, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), as well as the charge-sheet dated 17.05.2025 and the proceedings emanating therefrom, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, in Criminal Case No. 6434/2025, titled “State v. Manoj Kumar & Ors.” 3. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband and Petitioner No. 2 is the father-in-law of Respondent No. 2/complainant. The marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was solemnised on 28.11.2012 at Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, according to Hindu rites and customs. A female child was born from 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 08/09/2026 at 11:42:30 CRL.M.C.6551/2026 wedlock on 14.10.2013 and is presently stated to be in the custody of Respondent No. 2. 4. The allegations in the complaint forming the basis of the FIR are that, after the birth of the daughter, Respondent No. 2 was subjected to pressure by her husband and in-laws to give birth to a male child. It was further alleged that she was pressurised to undergo sex determination and in the event of the foetus being found to be female, to undergo termination of pregnancy. 5. Respondent No. 2 further alleged that, after she was unable to conceive again despite medical treatment, she was referred to as infertile by the in-laws and was pressurised to seek divorce and return to her parental home along with the minor child. She also alleged that Petitioner No. 1 used to quarrel with her, used to assault her and on occasions, leave the matrimonial home to reside with his parents. 6. The complaint further referred to an alleged demand of Rs.5,00,000/- from the father of Respondent No. 2 for construction of a house on ancestral land. It was alleged that similar amounts had earlier been paid by her father in connection with the matrimonial household. 7. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the impugned FIR was registered under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC. After investigation, the charge-sheet dated 17.05.2025 was filed before the learned Trial Court. 8. Aggrieved by the registration of the aforesaid FIR and the consequential criminal proceedings arising therefrom, the petitioners have approached this Court, contending that the FIR and the charge-sheet do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the IPC and that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 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 08/09/2026 at 11:42:30 CRL.M.C.6551/2026 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned FIR is an outcome of a matrimonial dispute and contains false, exaggerated and omnibus allegations intended to pressurise the petitioners. It is submitted that the allegations do not disclose the essential ingredients of Sections 498A or 406 IPC. According to learned counsel, the conduct of Petitioner No. 1 throughout the marriage, including bearing the expenses of Respondent No. 2’s education and medical treatment, is inconsistent with the allegations of dowry harassment and cruelty. 10. Learned counsel submits that the allegations relating to the demand of dowry are unsupported by any material. It is contended that the amount of Rs.50,00,000/- referred to by Respondent No. 2 was a friendly loan advanced by her father for the purchase of the residential flat and that the said amount was subsequently repaid. It is further submitted that Respondent No. 2 was made a co-owner of the said property and, therefore, the allegation that the amount was demanded or misappropriated as dowry is misconceived. 11. Learned counsel further submits that the allegations concerning the alleged withholding of istridhan do not disclose the essential ingredients of Section 406 IPC. 12. Learned counsel further submits that Petitioner No.2 has been residing separately at Gudha, Indri, Karnal, and that no specific role, overt act or incident has been attributed to him. His implication, according to learned counsel, is solely on account of his relationship with Petitioner No.1. 13. Learned counsel also disputes the allegations relating to forced abortion and impotency. It is submitted that the medical documents relied upon by Respondent No. 2 do not record any abortion procedure and instead reflect treatment for gynaecological conditions. It is further submitted that 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 08/09/2026 at 11:42:30 CRL.M.C.6551/2026 allegation of impotency is inconsistent with the admitted fact that a child was born from the wedlock. 14. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to the complaint dated 26.05.2022 submitted by Petitioner No. 1 to the Station House Officer, Police Station Bindapur, alleging threats by Respondent No. 2 to commit suicide and to implicate him in criminal proceedings. 15. Learned counsel further submits that Respondent No. 2 had earlier lodged a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South-West District, on 15.01.2022, which was subsequently withdrawn on 22.02.2022. According to learned counsel, the subsequent revival of substantially similar allegations indicates that the FIR has been lodged with an ulterior motive and as a counterblast to the matrimonial dispute between the parties. 16. Learned APP for the State opposes the present petition and submits that the same is devoid of merit. It is contended that the allegations contained in the FIR, if taken at their face value, clearly disclose the commission of offences under Sections 498A and 406 read with Section 34 IPC. 17. It is contended that the investigation has culminated in the filing of the charge-sheet and the learned Trial Court is required to consider the material collected by the investigating agency at the appropriate stage. At this stage, this Court is not required to conduct a mini-trial or assess the probative value of the material. 18. This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. 19. The scope of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court is well settled. The power under Section 528 BNSS is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, only to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise 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 08/09/2026 at 11:42:30 CRL.M.C.6551/2026 to secure the ends of justice. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, the Supreme Court enumerated illustrative categories in which the extraordinary jurisdiction may be exercised. However, the said power cannot be invoked merely because the accused disputes the allegations or seeks appreciation of the defence material. 20. In the present case, the allegations in the FIR cannot be said to be wholly vague or inherently improbable. The complainant has alleged that after the birth of the daughter, she was subjected to pressure to give birth to a male child and was allegedly asked to undergo sex determination and terminate the pregnancy if the foetus was found to be female. She has further alleged that, on account of her inability to conceive again despite treatment, she was called barren or infertile and was pressurised to leave the matrimonial home. 21. The FIR also contains allegations of physical assault, threats, denial of financial support, non-payment of school fees of the minor child, restrictions upon her communication with relatives and visits to her parental home, as well as the alleged demand of ₹5 lakh for construction of a house. The complainant has also referred to the alleged retention and non-return of her dowry articles and istridhan. These allegations, taken cumulatively and at their face value, prima facie disclose the ingredients of cruelty contemplated under Section 498A IPC and require examination during trial. 22. The contention that the allegations are exaggerated or that the complainant has relied upon an incorrect version of events involves disputed questions of fact. The defence of the petitioners that the amount of ₹50 lakh was a friendly loan, that the same was repaid, that Respondent No.2 was made a co-owner of the flat or that she had access to the jewellery locker, cannot be conclusively adjudicated in the present proceedings. The evidentiary value of 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 08/09/2026 at 11:42:30 CRL.M.C.6551/2026 the documents relied upon by the petitioners and the correctness of the complainant’s allegations are matters to be considered by the learned Trial Court after the parties have led evidence. 23. In Manjula Sinha v. State of U.P., (2007) 8 SCC 448, the Supreme Court observed that where allegations relating to Section 406 IPC are contained in the complaint, the failure of the prosecution to substantiate them is a matter for trial and not ordinarily a ground for quashing at the threshold. 24. The separate residence of Petitioner No.2, by itself, does not render the prosecution unsustainable. The FIR refers to the involvement of the parents- in-law in the alleged matrimonial harassment and demand. Whether Petitioner No.2 was residing separately during the relevant period, whether he had any role in the alleged incidents and whether the allegations against him are supported by the material collected during investigation are factual issues which cannot be conclusively determined on the basis of the defence set up in the petition. 25. The filing of the charge-sheet also assumes significance. The investigating agency, upon completion of investigation, has filed the charge- sheet for offences under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC. This Court cannot, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, evaluate the sufficiency or reliability of the evidence collected by the investigating agency as if it were conducting a trial. The learned Trial Court is required to consider the material in accordance with law at the stage of framing of charge and thereafter proceed with the trial. 26. It is reiterated that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not prejudice the case of either party before the learned Trial Court. The petitioners shall be at liberty to raise all permissible factual and legal contentions before 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 08/09/2026 at 11:42:30 CRL.M.C.6551/2026 Court at the appropriate stage. 27. In view of the specific allegations contained in the FIR, the filing of the charge-sheet and the disputed nature of the defence raised by the petitioners, this Court is not persuaded to hold that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 28. The present petition is, accordingly, found to be devoid of merit and is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 29. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 7, 2026/JYH/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 08/09/2026 at 11:42:30