CRL.M.C. 7126/2026 $~63 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010457252026 + CRL.M.C. 7126/2026 & CRL.M.A. 29815/2026, CRL.M.A. 29816/2026, CRL.M.A. 29817/2026 RASHID .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Naman Dwivedi, Mr. Shafik Ahmed, Ms. Anju, Advs. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP, with SI Ashish Sharma, P.S. Nand Nagri CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 24.09.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. By way of the present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter, ‘BNSS’), the Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 87/2016, registered at Police Station Nand Nagri, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, ‘IPC’), and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. Brief Facts: 3. The marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 was solemnised on 11.06.2006 according to Muslim rites and customs. Four children were born out of the wedlock. Respondent No.2 left the matrimonial home on 02.02.2014 along with a minor male child, while the minor girl child and the other two minor male children remained with the Petitioner. 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 25/09/2026 at 11:16:36 CRL.M.C. 7126/2026 4. On 16.09.2015, Respondent No.2 made a complaint against the Petitioner before the CAW Cell, Seemapuri, Delhi, pursuant to which the present FIR came to be registered. 5. The allegations in the FIR are that, after 2012, the Petitioner started physically assaulting Respondent No.2 and demanding money from her parents. It is alleged that her parents arranged ₹25,000/- in 2012 and ₹20,000/- in 2013 pursuant to such demands. It is further alleged that the Petitioner continued demanding money and subjected her to physical assault, pursuant to which she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home on 02.02.2014. 6. The matter is pending before the learned JMFC (Mahila Court), Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. Charges were framed in the year 2018, and the trial is presently underway, with three out of eight prosecution witnesses having been examined. 7. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, on 02.06.2023, the Petitioner received a notice from Darul Ifta, situated at 1344, Masjid Mohtasib, Phatak Habash Khan, Tilak Bazar, Delhi-110006, pursuant to an application moved by Respondent No.2 seeking khula. The Petitioner appeared before the Committee of Darul Ifta, where Respondent No.2 was also present. 8. It is the case of the Petitioner that Respondent No.2 agreed to withdraw the cases pending against him on the condition that the parties dissolve their matrimonial relationship through khula. 9. Thereafter, on 03.09.2023, khula was effected before the Darul Ifta, and a document recording the understanding between the parties was prepared in Urdu and signed by both parties. 10. The Petitioner, aggrieved by the continuation of the aforesaid criminal 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 25/09/2026 at 11:16:36 CRL.M.C. 7126/2026 proceedings despite the subsequent khula and the alleged understanding between the parties, has approached this Court seeking quashing of the FIR and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner: 11. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Petitioner appeared before the CAW Cell and expressed his willingness to take Respondent No.2 back to the matrimonial home. However, when the Petitioner thereafter went to the parental home of Respondent No.2 to take her back, she did not agree to resume cohabitation. 12. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the matrimonial relationship between the parties subsequently came to an end through khula proceedings before the Darul Ifta on 03.09.2023. Of the four children born out of the wedlock, three are in the custody of the Petitioner, and one minor son is in the custody of Respondent No.2. 13. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the allegations under Section 406 IPC are vague and that no specific property is alleged to have been entrusted to the Petitioner. It is further submitted that the father of the Petitioner was not named in the FIR, though he was subsequently arrayed as an accused in the charge-sheet, and has since expired. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the parties had arrived at an understanding before the Quazi for withdrawal of the pending proceedings, which was not honoured by Respondent No.2. 14. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that Respondent No.2 has since remarried and has a child from the said marriage. Submissions on behalf of the Respondent: 15. Per contra, learned APP for the State submits that charges in 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 25/09/2026 at 11:16:36 CRL.M.C. 7126/2026 present case were framed in the year 2018 and the said order was never challenged by the Petitioner. It is further submitted that the trial is already underway and three out of eight prosecution witnesses have been examined. It is, therefore, submitted that no ground for interference at this stage is made out. Findings and Analysis: 16. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 17. The jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS is undoubtedly wide, but is required to be exercised sparingly and with caution. At the stage of considering a petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings, the Court is required to examine whether the allegations, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of the offences alleged. The Court is not required to undertake a detailed appreciation of evidence or conduct a mini-trial. 18. The Supreme Court, in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, while considering the scope of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC, reiterated that the High Court ought not to usurp the function of the Trial Court or conduct a mini-trial where disputed questions of fact arise. The Court is required to examine whether the uncontroverted allegations contained in the FIR, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The Supreme Court further reiterated the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and that the reliability, credibility or genuineness of the allegations ordinarily cannot be examined at the stage of quashing. 19. The principal contentions raised by the Petitioner, including that no specific property was entrusted to him so as to constitute an offence under 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 25/09/2026 at 11:16:36 CRL.M.C. 7126/2026 Section 406 IPC and that the applicability of Section 34 IPC is not made out, would require examination of the material collected during investigation and, where necessary, appreciation of evidence. Whether the allegations relating to entrustment and the other ingredients of the offences are ultimately established is a matter to be determined by the learned Trial Court on the basis of the evidence led before it. This Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, cannot undertake such an adjudication at this stage. 20. It is also significant that the charge-sheet has already been filed, charges were framed in the year 2018, and the order framing charges was never challenged by the Petitioner. The trial has further progressed, with three out of eight prosecution witnesses having been examined. Thus, the matter is already at the stage of trial, and the issues raised by the Petitioner can appropriately be adjudicated by the learned Trial Court on the basis of the evidence before it. At this stage, this Court would not be justified in interdicting the trial merely on the basis of factual and evidentiary objections raised by the Petitioner. 21. The subsequent khula proceedings and the alleged understanding between the parties regarding withdrawal of the pending proceedings are subsequent developments. Likewise, the alleged subsequent remarriage of Respondent No.2 is a circumstance subsequent to the registration of the FIR. These developments, by themselves, do not efface the allegations forming the basis of the prosecution. The effect, if any, of such subsequent developments upon the prosecution case is a matter which may be urged before and considered by the learned Trial Court in accordance with law. 22. In the present case, the proceedings originate from the complaint made by Respondent No.2, pursuant to which the subject FIR came to be registered. 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 25/09/2026 at 11:16:36 CRL.M.C. 7126/2026 The complaint contains specific allegations of repeated demands for money, physical assault, and the circumstances in which Respondent No.2 was allegedly compelled to leave the matrimonial home. When the allegations contained in the FIR are taken at their face value, they cannot be said to be so inherently improbable as to warrant exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the FIR. 23. The Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure (supra) has cautioned that criminal proceedings should not ordinarily be scuttled at the threshold where the allegations disclose a cognizable offence, and that the power of quashing is to be exercised sparingly. 24. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds that the grounds urged by the Petitioner essentially raise questions of fact and evidentiary appreciation which cannot be conclusively determined in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. The allegations forming the basis of the prosecution require adjudication on the basis of evidence, which would be dealt with by the learned Trial Court in accordance with law. 25. Accordingly, this Court finds no ground to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash FIR No. 87/2016 or the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom. 26. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. 27. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 24, 2026/prg/yt 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 25/09/2026 at 11:16:36