CRL.M.C. 6717/2026 $~85 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010428482026 + CRL.M.C. 6717/2026 & CRL.M.A. 28066/2026, CRL.M.A. 28067/2026 ANURADHA GUPTA & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Ritu Bharadwaj, Adv. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP. SI Sachin, PS - Laxmi Nagar. CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 10.09.2026 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’) seeks quashing of FIR No. 388/2022, registered at Police Station Laxmi Nagar, Delhi under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), the consequent chargesheet dated 12.11.2024 under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom, insofar as they concern the Petitioners. 3. Petitioner No. 1 is the mother-in-law and Petitioner No. 2 is the brother- in-law of Respondent No. 2/complainant. Respondent No. 2 married the son of Petitioner No. 1 on 18.07.2021. Matrimonial disputes thereafter arose between the parties. A complaint dated 14.12.2021 was made by Respondent No. 2, which culminated in registration of the present FIR. During 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 14/09/2026 at 16:00:58 CRL.M.C. 6717/2026 investigation, statements of Respondent No. 2 and her parents were recorded under Section 161 CrPC on 14.08.2024. Section 34 IPC was thereafter added and the chargesheet dated 12.11.2024 was filed against the husband and the present Petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the dispute is essentially between the husband and wife and that the Petitioners, who resided separately at Greater Noida, have been roped in on vague and omnibus allegations. It is urged that the original complaint attributes no specific act of cruelty or unlawful demand to them and, rather, records that they had initially supported Respondent No. 2. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the allegations of demand of money and retention of stridhan surfaced only in the subsequent statements under Section 161 CrPC and are material improvements. Accordingly, it is contended that no offence under Sections 498A or 406 IPC is made out against the Petitioners. 6. Learned APP for the State opposes the petition and submits that the chargesheet already stands filed, the Petitioners have been summoned and the matter is presently at the stage of arguments on charge. He submits that the pleas raised by the Petitioners are matters for consideration by the learned Trial Court at that stage. 7. This Court has heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned APP for the State and perused the record. 8. The contention that there is no material whatsoever against the Petitioners does not merit acceptance at this stage. The original complaint cannot be read in isolation while examining a challenge directed not merely against the FIR, but also against the chargesheet filed upon completion 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 14/09/2026 at 16:00:58 CRL.M.C. 6717/2026 investigation. 9. In her statement dated 14.08.2024 recorded under Section 161 CrPC, Respondent No. 2 has specifically alleged that, after initially supporting her, the Petitioners began siding with her husband, troubling her, demanding money from her, insisting that she bear the household expenses and finding fault with the dowry articles. Allegations of verbal abuse and non return of stridhan have also been made against them. 10. The chargesheet has thereafter been filed against the husband and both Petitioners under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC on the basis of the material collected during investigation and the statements of the witnesses. At this stage, this Court cannot test the correctness, reliability or ultimate evidentiary value of such material. 11. In Kaushal Kishor Mishra & Ors. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., 2026:DHC:6002, this Court reiterated that jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS does not permit a meticulous appreciation of the factual matrix or a mini-trial. Where the challenge raises disputed questions requiring appreciation of evidence, the criminal proceedings ought not ordinarily to be interdicted at the threshold. 12. Similarly, in Rajesh Kumar & Anr. v. State & Anr., 2026:DHC:7404, this Court observed that separate residence, by itself, does not necessarily negate an allegation concerning entrustment and non return of stridhan. The manner of entrustment, demand for return and alleged refusal are matters of evidence. It was further held that, at the stage of charge, the probable defence of the accused cannot be weighed against the prosecution case by undertaking a comparative assessment of their respective credibility. 13. The plea that the Petitioners were residing separately at Greater Noida 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 14/09/2026 at 16:00:58 CRL.M.C. 6717/2026 is undoubtedly available to them in defence. It cannot, however, by itself, render the allegations collected during investigation inherently untenable. Equally, the contention that the subsequent statements are improvements would necessarily require this Court to assess their credibility and evidentiary worth. Such an exercise falls outside the limited scope of jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS. 14. The matter has, in any event, reached the stage of arguments on charge. The Petitioners are at liberty to urge all permissible grounds concerning the sufficiency of the material against them before the learned Trial Court. It shall be for the learned Trial Court to consider, independently and in accordance with law, whether the material on record warrants framing of any charge against the Petitioners. 15. No case is, therefore, made out for exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the FIR, chargesheet or the proceedings emanating therefrom qua the Petitioners. 16. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 17. It is clarified that the observations made herein are only for deciding the present petition. The learned Trial Court shall consider the matter at the stage of charge on its own merits, uninfluenced by any observation made in this order. 18. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 10, 2026/ys/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 14/09/2026 at 16:00:58