$~96 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010426992026 + CRL.M.C. 6699/2026 & CRL.M.A. 27976/2026, CRL.M.A. 27977/2026 SHRI RAJENDER SHARMA & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Prashant Kumar and Ms. Himani Sharma, Advs. for P-1 & 2. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP with SI Rakesh Kumar. 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 under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS’) has been filed by the Petitioners seeking quashing of FIR No. 257/2022, registered at Police Station Narela, Delhi under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), the chargesheet filed pursuant thereto, the cognizance/summoning order dated 07.09.2024, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, insofar as they relate to the Petitioners. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law, respectively, of Respondent No. 2/complainant. 3. Respondent No. 2 was married to the son of the Petitioners on 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 11:00:41 28.11.2012 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Two daughters were born from the wedlock. Matrimonial disputes thereafter arose between Respondent No. 2 and her husband, pursuant to which she approached the Crime Against Women (‘CAW’) Cell and made allegations against her husband and members of her matrimonial family. 4. In the complaint, Respondent No. 2 alleged, inter alia, that Petitioner No. 2/mother-in-law subjected her to mental and physical cruelty on account of dowry and taunted her for having brought insufficient dowry. It was further alleged that her husband and Petitioner No. 2 expected financial assistance from her parental family, demanded that she bring ₹5 lakhs from her parents, and did not provide her proper food. Allegations of physical assault were also made against Petitioner No. 2 and the two sisters-in-law. 5. Insofar as Petitioner No. 1/father-in-law is concerned, para 13 of the complaint alleges that on 25.12.2018, Respondent No. 2 was thrown out of the matrimonial home along with her children by the mother-in-law, father- in-law and the sisters-in-law. The said paragraph also contains a collective allegation regarding retention of her jewellery and demand for further dowry, including ₹5 lakhs in cash. 6. Respondent No. 2 further alleged that her dowry articles, jewellery and stridhan were in the custody of her mother-in-law and sisters-in-law and were not being returned despite repeated requests and demands. On the basis of the complaint, the present FIR came to be registered on 07.06.2022. 7. During investigation, statements of Respondent No. 2, her brother and her mother were recorded under Section 161 CrPC on 23.06.2022. Respondent No. 2, while affirming her earlier statement, stated that her husband, mother-in-law and both sisters-in-law had assaulted her. She further 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 11:00:41 stated that she did not remember the dates and time of the assaults and that she had neither made any earlier police complaint nor undergone medical examination. She also stated that the incidents had occurred inside the matrimonial home and there were no other witnesses. 8. The brother and mother of Respondent No. 2, in their respective statements under Section 161 CrPC, alleged harassment of Respondent No. 2 on account of dowry and referred to the conduct of her husband and matrimonial family, including the father-in-law and mother-in-law. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the Petitioners and the other accused persons. Vide order dated 07.09.2024, the learned Trial Court, after perusing the chargesheet and the documents, took cognizance and summoned the accused persons. The matter is presently at the stage of consideration of charge. 9. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the present case arises out of matrimonial discord and the Petitioners have been implicated only because they are the parents of the husband of Respondent No. 2. It is particularly urged that the complaint and the FIR contain no specific allegation against Petitioner No. 1/father-in-law and no individual act of cruelty, dowry demand or misappropriation of stridhan has been attributed to him. 10. Learned counsel further draws attention to the statement of Respondent No. 2 under Section 161 CrPC wherein, while referring to the alleged assaults, she names her husband, mother-in-law and both sisters-in-law, but does not name Petitioner No. 1. It is submitted that the allegations against Petitioner No. 2 are also vague and omnibus and are unsupported by any contemporaneous complaint, medical record or independent witness. It is thus 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 11:00:41 prayed that the FIR and all consequential proceedings be quashed qua the Petitioners. 11. Learned APP for the State opposes the petition and draws attention to para 13 of the complaint, wherein the father-in-law has been specifically referred to in relation to the incident dated 25.12.2018. It is submitted that the chargesheet has already been filed and the matter is presently at the stage of consideration of charge before the learned Trial Court. 12. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned APP for the State and perused the material placed on record. 13. The principles governing exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings are well settled. In Taramani Parakh v. State of M.P. & Ors., (2015) 11 SCC 260, the Supreme Court held that although Courts must exercise caution where omnibus allegations are made against relatives in matrimonial disputes, where the material discloses a triable case, the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is not required to examine the reliability of the version or the counter version. Whether the complainant was in fact subjected to harassment or cruelty is a matter to be tested at trial. 14. The Supreme Court in Taramani Parakh (supra) further held that decisions quashing proceedings against relatives of the husband cannot be read as laying down an inflexible rule and each case must be examined on its own facts. Where a factual foundation for the offence exists, the criminal proceedings ought not to be interdicted by undertaking a meticulous examination of the evidence at the threshold. 15. In the present case, the principal submission that there is no allegation whatsoever against Petitioner No. 1/father-in-law is not borne out from the record. Para 13 of the complaint expressly refers to Petitioner No. 1 in relation 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 11:00:41 to the incident dated 25.12.2018, when Respondent No. 2 is alleged to have been thrown out of the matrimonial home along with her children. Though the allegation is made collectively along with the mother-in-law and sisters-in- law, this is not a case where Petitioner No. 1 has merely been named as an accused without any factual allegation whatsoever. 16. The statement of Respondent No. 2 recorded under Section 161 CrPC does not persuade this Court to take a different view. The said statement begins with Respondent No. 2 affirming her earlier statement and thereafter proceeds to make a further statement. The omission of Petitioner No. 1’s name while specifically recounting the acts of beating cannot, at this stage, be construed as effacing the allegations contained in the complaint. The statements of the mother and brother of Respondent No. 2 also refer to the alleged conduct of the matrimonial family, including the father-in-law and mother-in-law. 17. The allegations against Petitioner No. 2/mother-in-law are comparatively more direct. The complaint specifically refers to Petitioner No. 2 in relation to alleged dowry related taunts, mental and physical cruelty, demand for financial assistance and ₹5 lakhs, denial of proper food, physical assault and custody of the jewellery/stridhan of Respondent No. 2. Whether these allegations are ultimately established is a matter of evidence. 18. The fact that Respondent No. 2 did not lodge a contemporaneous police complaint, did not undergo medical examination or is unable to recall the date and time of each alleged assault may have a bearing on the appreciation of evidence at the appropriate stage. These circumstances, however, cannot by themselves furnish a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings, particularly when the allegations, taken at their face value, disclose matters 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 11:00:41 requiring consideration by the Trial Court. 19. In Kuhu Pandya & Anr. v. State NCT of Delhi & Ors., 2018:DHC:5358, this Court, while examining allegations arising from a matrimonial dispute, drew a distinction between the parents-in-law and the other relatives of the husband. Upon finding sufficient material against the father-in-law and mother-in-law, the Court permitted the prosecution against them to continue, while holding the allegations against the sisters and their spouses to be general in nature. The decision reinforces that the material has to be examined qua the role attributed to each accused and that mere relationship with the husband is neither, by itself, sufficient to prosecute nor sufficient to quash the proceedings. 20. Insofar as the offence under Section 406 IPC is concerned, the complaint contains specific allegations regarding custody and non return of jewellery/stridhan qua Petitioner No. 2, apart from the collective allegation contained in para 13 of the complaint. At the present stage, it is neither necessary nor appropriate for this Court to return a final finding as to whether a charge under Section 406 and 34 IPC is made out against either of the Petitioners. The said issue shall be considered by the learned Trial Court on the basis of the material placed before it at the stage of consideration of charge. 21. It is also pertinent that the investigation already stands concluded and a chargesheet has been filed. The learned Trial Court is presently seized of the matter at the stage of consideration of charge. Any detailed assessment of the probative value of the statements, absence of corroborative material or the likelihood of the allegations ultimately resulting in conviction would require this Court to undertake an exercise which is not warranted 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 10/09/2026 at 11:00:41 under Section 528 BNSS. 22. The challenge to the cognizance/summoning order dated 07.09.2024 also does not warrant interference. The learned Trial Court has recorded that it perused the chargesheet and the documents and found sufficient material to take cognizance of the offence. Merely because the order is brief would not, in the facts of the present case, constitute a ground to set it aside. 23. In view of the material noticed above, this Court does not find a case for quashing the criminal proceedings at the threshold. The questions concerning the precise offences, if any, for which either of the Petitioners is liable to be proceeded against shall be considered by the learned Trial Court at the stage of charge. 24. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 25. It is clarified that the learned Trial Court shall consider the question of charge independently, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made herein. 26. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 9, 2026/JYH/m 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 11:00:41