W.P.(CRL) 2094/2026 $~125 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 2094/2026 & CRL.M.A. 21003/2026 LUQMAN MOEENUL ISLAM .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Furkan Ali Mirza, Adv. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, Mr. Alok Sharma, Ms. Pavitra Dixit, Advs SI Akash Deep, PS Jamia Nagar CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN O R D E R % 20.07.2026 1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 480/2025, dated 27.11.2025, registered under Section 85, 316(2), 115(2), 351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, lodged at Police Station Jamia Nagar, at the instance of respondent No. 2. 2. In the impugned FIR, respondent No. 2 states that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner on 24.08.2016, and that her family had given dowry. However, some days after the marriage, it is alleged that her husband, mother-in-law and three sisters-in-law started taunting her for bringing less dowry, and she also received threats that she would be divorced if she did not fulfil their demands. There are also allegations of assault by one of the sisters-in-law. It is further alleged that 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 23/07/2026 at 12:28:03 W.P.(CRL) 2094/2026 herein resides in Saudi Arabia, and when respondent No. 2 visited Saudi Arabia, with both their daughters, the petitioner assaulted her and strangled her. Upon her complaint to the Indian Embassy, it is stated that the petitioner gave a written apology. She states that she was expelled from the matrimonial home in Saudi Arabia on 07.02.2025, and forcibly sent back to India. On 24.05.2025, the petitioner gave a Facebook call on her mobile phone and he pronounced talaq three times, stating that she had not arranged a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/-, and a flat for him. 3. Mr. Furkan Ali Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the allegations in the FIR are incorrect, as there is no record of a Facebook call being made by the petitioner to the complainant on 24.05.2025. He states that the petitioner made an application to the Investigating Officer for collecting the Facebook call log of the complainant and the petitioner for the said date. He submits that a similar application has been filed before the Trial Court in this regard. 4. Learned counsel on both sides state that the FIR is still at the stage of investigation, and the chargesheet has not yet been filed. 5. At present, the matter is at the stage of registration of the FIR, which is under investigation. The Court’s jurisdiction to quash an FIR at such a stage is exercised on limited grounds. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335] [hereinafter, “Bhajan Lal”], wherein the Court held as follows: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers 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 23/07/2026 at 12:28:03 W.P.(CRL) 2094/2026 Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 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 23/07/2026 at 12:28:03 W.P.(CRL) 2094/2026 Further, in Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, [(2021) 19 SCC 401], the Supreme Court considered precedents including Bhajan Lal, and laid down principles governing quashing of an FIR, as follows: “13. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in Khwaja Nazir Ahmad [AIR 1945 PC 18], the following principles of law emerge: 13.1. Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences. 13.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences. 13.3. However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on. 13.4. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the “rarest of rare cases”. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482CrPC is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court.) 13.5. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. 13.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. 13.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule. 13.8. Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482CrPC. 13.9. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping. 13.10. Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences. 13.11. Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice. 13.12. The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits 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 23/07/2026 at 12:28:03 W.P.(CRL) 2094/2026 allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure. 13.13. The power under Section 482CrPC is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court. 13.14. However, at the same time, the Court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur [1960 SCC OnLine SC 21] and Bhajan Lal [Supra], has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint. 13.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the Court when it exercises the power under Section 482CrPC, only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR. ” 6. In the present case, having regard to the allegations contained in the impugned FIR, I am of the view that this is not a case in which it can be said that no offence is made out against the petitioner in the FIR. Instead, the case of the petitioner hinges upon the veracity of the complainant’s allegations, which cannot be the subject matter of adjudication at this stage, in terms of the above cited judgments. Equally, at this stage, there is no material on record to indicate that the registration of the FIR or the continuation of the investigation otherwise amounts to an abuse of the process of law. No other ground available to the petitioner, has been urged before this Court. 7. In these circumstances, I do not consider it appropriate to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, at this 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 23/07/2026 at 12:28:03 W.P.(CRL) 2094/2026 stage. The matter is still under investigation, and it is for the prosecution to take a call after investigation, as to whether the material is sufficient for filing of a chargesheet against the petitioner. Even at the stage of arguments on charge, the remedies of the petitioner, including filing a discharge application, are available to him, and filing of the present petition in this Court at this stage is premature. 8. The petition, alongwith the pending application, is dismissed in terms of the aforesaid. PRATEEK JALAN, J JULY 20, 2026 Tg/AN/ 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 23/07/2026 at 12:28:03