CRL.M.C. 7009/2026 $~65 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010448502026 + CRL.M.C. 7009/2026 & CRL.M.A. 29296/2026, CRL.M.A. 29297/2026 SMT SHWETA & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Pratyaksh Raj, Adv. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP with Ms. Mansi Arya, Adv. SI Archana, PS Burari. CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 21.09.2026 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. 777/2024 registered at P.S. Burari, for offences punishable under Sections 85, 316(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNS’), and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom, insofar as they concern the Petitioners. The Petitioners are the three married sisters of the husband of Respondent No. 2/Complainant. 3. Briefly, Respondent No. 2 married the brother of the Petitioners on 05.12.2022 and left the matrimonial home on 14.02.2024. On 05.03.2024, she lodged a complaint at P.S. Burari principally against her husband, without 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 22/09/2026 at 10:52:55 CRL.M.C. 7009/2026 making any allegation against the Petitioners. Thereafter, on 20.08.2024, she approached the CAW Cell, Sabzi Mandi, making allegations against her husband and his family members, including the Petitioners, which led to registration of the present FIR on 18.12.2024. 4. In the complaint dated 20.08.2024, Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are alleged to have abused the Complainant, while Petitioner No. 2 is further alleged to have pulled her hair and slapped her. It is also alleged that, after the Complainant claimed to have become pregnant, Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 suggested a gender determination test and Petitioner No.2 abused her when she objected. 5. The complaint further alleges that in April, 2023, all three Petitioners visited the matrimonial home. The Complainant alleges that she slipped on detergent water and fell on her stomach, Petitioner No. 3 thereafter caught hold of her by the hair and kicked her, while Petitioner No. 2 mocked her when she threatened to approach the police. The father-in-law is alleged to have subsequently kicked her in the stomach, resulting in the alleged miscarriage. 6. Upon completion of investigation, chargesheet dated 06.03.2025 was filed. Vide order dated 21.05.2025, the learned Trial Court found prima facie sufficient material to proceed and framed, inter alia, charges under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC against all the accused, under Section 313 read with Section 34 IPC against Shankar Lal and the three Petitioners, and under Section 509 IPC against the Petitioners. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that all three Petitioners were married prior to the marriage of Respondent No. 2 and reside separately at Faridabad, Loni, Ghaziabad and Burari, respectively. It is submitted that 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 22/09/2026 at 10:52:55 CRL.M.C. 7009/2026 none of them ever shared the matrimonial household with Respondent No. 2. 8. Learned counsel further submits that the complaint dated 05.03.2024 contained no allegation against the Petitioners and that they were implicated only in the subsequent complaint dated 20.08.2024. It is contended that the allegations are vague, omnibus and intended to implicate the entire family of the husband. 9. Learned counsel also relies upon the records of Tarak Hospital to submit that Respondent No. 2 underwent an ultrasound on 14.02.2023 in connection with treatment for infertility. On this basis, it is contended that there is no material demonstrating pregnancy or miscarriage and that the allegation forming the basis of the charge under Section 313 IPC is contradicted by the medical record. 10. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and perused the material placed on record. 11. The circumstance that the Petitioners are married sisters-in-law and reside separately cannot, by itself, be determinative of a prayer for quashing. The Court is required to examine whether the allegations, taken at their face value, disclose a prima facie case against the persons sought to be proceeded against. 12. In the present case, the complaint does not merely refer to the Petitioners by reason of their relationship with the husband. Specific acts of abuse and physical harassment have been attributed to Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. The complaint further specifically places all three Petitioners at the matrimonial home during the alleged incident of April, 2023. The extent of the role attributed to each Petitioner and whether the allegations are ultimately proved are matters which would necessarily require appreciation of evidence. 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 22/09/2026 at 10:52:55 CRL.M.C. 7009/2026 13. In Mrs. Neha Chaudhary v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors., 2024:DHC:8475, this Court was dealing with a petition filed by a married sister-in-law who was residing separately at Faridabad and had contended that she visited the matrimonial home only occasionally and had been implicated through vague and omnibus allegations. Upon finding that the complaint contained specific allegations concerning her participation in the alleged acts, this Court declined to quash the FIR. It was observed that an FIR is not expected to be an encyclopaedia and that absence of precise dates in respect of every allegation would not, by itself, furnish a ground for quashing where the allegations otherwise disclose an offence. 14. The present case has progressed even further. The investigation stands concluded, the chargesheet has been filed and, after consideration of the material on record and hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court has already framed charges vide order dated 21.05.2025. 15. The reliance placed by the Petitioners upon the record of Tarak Hospital also does not persuade this Court to interdict the proceedings at this stage. The document records that Respondent No. 2 had approached the hospital for infertility treatment and underwent an ultrasound on 14.02.2023. Whether the said material disproves the subsequent allegation of pregnancy and miscarriage, and the evidentiary value to be attached thereto, are matters which would require assessment of the prosecution and defence evidence. Undertaking such an exercise in the present proceedings would amount to evaluating disputed material and conducting a mini-trial, which is impermissible while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS. 16. Similarly, the fact that the Petitioners were not named in the complaint dated 05.03.2024 is a circumstance which may be relied upon by them 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 22/09/2026 at 10:52:55 CRL.M.C. 7009/2026 trial. However, the said omission, by itself, cannot result in the subsequent allegations being discarded at the threshold. The effect of the earlier complaint vis-à-vis the subsequent complaint is a matter concerning the credibility and weight of the evidence and must be tested before the learned Trial Court. 17. The jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS is not intended to determine whether the prosecution would ultimately succeed or whether the defence version is more probable. At this stage, the Court is only required to see whether continuation of the proceedings would constitute such an abuse of the process of law as would justify exercise of the inherent jurisdiction. Having regard to the allegations on record, the completion of investigation and the order framing charges, no such case is made out. 18. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 19. The observations made herein shall not be construed as an expression on the merits. The learned Trial Court shall proceed independently and uninfluenced by the same. 20. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 21, 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 22/09/2026 at 10:52:55