CRL.M.C. 6651/2026 $~81 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010424642026 + CRL.M.C. 6651/2026 DINESH KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Piyush Lakhera, Adv. versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP SI Sharda & SI Naresh Kumar Sharma, PS Dabri. Ms. Sakshi Tanwar, Adv. for R2 (through VC) CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 09.09.2026 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’), by the petitioners seeking quashing of the order dated 03.07.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, in Criminal Revision No. 435/2026, titled “Dinesh Kumar v. State & Ors”. 3. The impugned order was passed in an application seeking stay/suspension of the proceedings before the learned Trial Court during the pendency of the criminal revision petition. By the said order, the learned Revisional Court declined to stay the proceedings and directed that the trial could proceed, subject to the outcome of the revision petition. 4. The criminal revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions 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 10/09/2026 at 11:00:40 CRL.M.C. 6651/2026 Judge had been preferred against the order dated 21.05.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahila Court, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, in State v. Dinesh Kumar, arising out of FIR No. 870/2022 registered at Police Station Dabri under Sections 498-A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’). 5. The said FIR was registered on the complaint of respondent No. 2, Ms. Neelam, who is the wife of petitioner No. 1, Dinesh Kumar. The marriage between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was solemnised on 25.01.2022 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. No child was born from the wedlock. 6. It is stated that respondent No. 2 had approached the Crime Against Women Cell on 28.04.2022. As the counselling proceedings did not result in a settlement, FIR No. 870/2022 came to be registered against the family members of petitioner No. 1, including his parents and two married sisters. 7. The police thereafter filed a charge-sheet on 01.02.2023. Petitioner No. 1 and the other accused persons were sent up for trial, while one of the married sisters, namely Deepika, was placed in column No. 12. She was, however, subsequently summoned by the learned Trial Court. 8. \]]Vide order dated 21.05.2026, the learned Trial Court discharged the father-in-law, Ved Prakash, and the two married sisters-in-law, Jyoti and Deepika, in respect of the offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC. The learned Trial Court, however, directed framing of charges under Sections 498-A, 406 and 34 IPC against petitioner No. 1, Dinesh Kumar, and his mother, Kiran. 9. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner No. 1 preferred Criminal Revision No. 435/2026 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka 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 10/09/2026 at 11:00:40 CRL.M.C. 6651/2026 Courts. The mother of petitioner No. 1 also preferred a separate criminal revision petition, being Criminal Revision No. 436/2026, challenging the same order. 10. Along with Criminal Revision No. 435/2026, petitioner No. 1 filed an application seeking stay of the proceedings before the learned Trial Court. The said application was considered by the learned Revisional Court on 03.07.2026. 11. By the impugned order dated 03.07.2026, the learned Revisional Court declined to stay the proceedings, observing that no prejudice would be caused to the revisionist if the trial proceeded during the pendency of the revision petition. It was further observed that the proceedings before the learned Trial Court would remain subject to the outcome of the revision petition. 12. The petitioner has challenged the said order before this Court. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS: 13. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order dated 03.07.2026, whereby the application seeking stay of the proceedings before the learned Trial Court was dismissed, is a non- speaking order and has been passed without considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. 14. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Revisional Court merely observed that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if the trial proceeded during the pendency of the revision petition. It was contended that the said observation does not constitute a consideration of the merits of the revision petition or of the grounds urged against the order framing charge. 15. It was submitted that the petitioner is challenging the order dated 21.05.2026 whereby charges under Sections 498-A, 406 and 34 IPC have 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 10/09/2026 at 11:00:40 CRL.M.C. 6651/2026 been directed to be framed against him and his mother, despite the absence of specific and legally sufficient allegations against them. Learned counsel contended that the learned Trial Court had failed to examine whether the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were disclosed from the material on record. 16. Learned counsel further submitted that the complaint of respondent No. 2 contains vague and general allegations relating to dowry and cruelty. It was argued that the allegations made in the different complaints are contradictory and that the statement of respondent No. 2 recorded under Section 161 CrPC does not contain specific allegations sufficient to constitute the offences alleged against the petitioners. 17. It was further submitted that the impugned order does not record or deal with the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, including the contention that the allegations were vague, contradictory and unsupported by the charge-sheet. The learned Revisional Court, according to counsel, mechanically dismissed the stay application without assigning reasons. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT: 18. Learned APP appearing for the State, at the outset, submitted that the present petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the revision petitions preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 21.05.2026 are still pending consideration before the learned Revisional Court. 19. Learned APP submitted that the petitioners have already availed the statutory remedy of revision against the order whereby charges have been directed to be framed against them. It was contended that the petitioners cannot simultaneously invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, merely because an interim application seeking stay 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 10/09/2026 at 11:00:40 CRL.M.C. 6651/2026 proceedings has been dismissed by the learned Revisional Court. 20. Learned APP submitted that the impugned order is only an interlocutory order passed on an application seeking stay of the proceedings before the learned Trial Court. The said order does not decide the revision petitions on merits and, therefore, does not warrant interference by this Court at this stage. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: 21. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 22. At the outset, the challenge in the present petition is not directed against the order dated 21.05.2026 passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby charges have been directed to be framed against the petitioners. The said order is already under challenge before the learned Revisional Court in Criminal Revision Nos. 435/2026 and 436/2026, which are stated to be pending consideration. The limited challenge before this Court is to the order dated 03.07.2026, whereby the learned Revisional Court declined to stay the proceedings before the learned Trial Court during the pendency of the revision petition. 23. The contention of the petitioners that the learned Revisional Court has not examined the merits of the revision petition cannot, by itself, be a ground for interference with the impugned order. While considering an application seeking stay of the proceedings, the learned Revisional Court was required to examine whether the circumstances warranted suspension of the proceedings during the pendency of the revision petition. It was not necessary for the learned Revisional Court to undertake a detailed examination of the merits of the challenge to the order framing charge at the interim stage. 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 10/09/2026 at 11:00:40 CRL.M.C. 6651/2026 24. The learned Revisional Court has observed that the matter before the learned Trial Court was at the stage of framing of charge and that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners if the proceedings were continued. It has further protected the interests of the petitioners by directing that the proceedings before the learned Trial Court would remain subject to the outcome of the revision petition. Thus, the impugned order cannot be said to be wholly without reasons or to have been passed mechanically. 25. The petitioners have not been able to demonstrate any patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned order. The mere dismissal of an application for stay, particularly when the proceedings have been directed to remain subject to the outcome of the revision petition, does not justify the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. 26. It is also significant that the petitioners have already availed the remedy of revision against the order framing charge. The present petition, insofar as it seeks reconsideration of the merits of the said order under the guise of challenging the interim order, cannot be permitted to result in parallel adjudication of the same issues. 27. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the order dated 03.07.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, in Criminal Revision No. 435/2026. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 28. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the pending revision petition or on the correctness of the order dated 21.05.2026 passed by the learned Trial Court. The learned Revisional Court shall decide the pending revision petition(s) independently and in accordance 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 10/09/2026 at 11:00:40 CRL.M.C. 6651/2026 with law. 29. The pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 30. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 9, 2026/ys/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 10/09/2026 at 11:00:40