Ashish Kalra And Others vs State Of Nct Of Delhi And Anothers

Court
Delhi High Court

$~72
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 05.05.2026
+ CRL.M.C. 3454/2026 & CRL.M.A. 14026/2026
ASHISH KALRA AND OTHERS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vardan Kharbanda, Advocate

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State
with W/SI Pista Sharma
Mr. Nikhil, Mr. Piyush Dixit and Mr.
Dheeraj Singh, Advocates for R2 with
complainant de facto in person






CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA


J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. Petitioners seek quashing of case FIR No. 09/2021 of PS Shahdara for
offence under Section 498A/406/354/34 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act on the ground that the complainant de facto ( respondent
no.2 herein ) has settled all matrimonial disputes with the petitioners.

CRL.M.C. 3454/2026 Page 1 of 4 pages

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec
45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1
5570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff80
1e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.05.05 05:03:16 -07'00'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:05.05.2026
17:10:37

2. At the outset, learned APP for State has referred to certain serious
allegations of sexual misconduct levelled in the subject FIR against the
present petitioner no. 2 ( brother-in-law of complainant de facto ). It is
contended that in view of such serious allegations of sexual misconduct, the
FIR cannot be quashed on the pretext of settlement between the parties.
Further, it is submitted by learned APP for State that the trial is already
listed for consideration of charge on 17.07.2026.
3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners. It is contended on behalf
of petitioners that according to the settled legal position, the High Court can
exercise inherent powers to quash the FIR where the offence alleged is
matrimonial wrong or a civil wrong and the court is of the view that ends of
justice call for quashing the FIR.
4. There is no dispute about the above mentioned legal proposition. But
what is to be examined is as to whether the subject FIR bears allegations of
only matrimonial/civil dispute and if so, whether it would be in the interest
of justice to quash the subject FIR.
5. The subject FIR runs into as many as 18 pages. One of the allegations
of sexual misconduct is that on 24.05.2020, when the complainant de facto
just came out of her bathroom, she saw the present petitioner no. 2 laying on
her bed, due to which she felt shocked and nervous, and asked him to
immediately leave her room, but he started playing a porn movie on his
mobile phone with high volume and even forced her for sexual favours; that

CRL.M.C. 3454/2026 Page 2 of 4 pages

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec455
69af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH
COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570
996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa,
cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.05.05 05:03:05 -07'00'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:05.05.2026
17:10:37

despite being repeatedly told to stop the porn video and leave the room, the
present petitioner no. 2 did not listen and passed certain obnoxious remarks
( recorded verbatim in the FIR ); that the present petitioner no. 2 further
threatened to circulate her video while she was taking a bath, if she objected
to his advances; that thereafter, he caught hold of her hand and pulled her,
but somehow she rescued herself and started shouting, so the remaining
petitioners entered her room; and that when she narrated the entire incident,
the remaining petitioners threatened her not to disclose the incident to
anyone, otherwise she would be killed.
6. I am of the considered view that these are extremely serious
allegations, which ought not to be ignored.
7. In view of the submission of petitioners that no such incident took
place, the complainant de facto , present in the courtroom, affirmed the
incident.
8. The expression “interest of justice” does not mean simply disposing
of a matter to suit the convenience of the litigants and also to lessen the
burden on dockets by one case. The High Court while exercising inherent
powers cannot be expected to look the other way and allow such serious
charges to go unpunished. Of course, whether these charges are truthful or
not, is for the trial court to decide after conducting a full dress trial and this
Court shall not conduct a mini trial in order to ascertain the truthfulness of
the charges. To say the least, these are not the charges of mere matrimonial

CRL.M.C. 3454/2026 Page 3 of 4 pages

GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af39
62c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF
DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b4
0f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH
KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.05.05 05:02:54 -07'00'
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:05.05.2026
17:10:37

or civil wrong. These are heinous allegations of a lady against her brother-
in-law.
9. I am not oblivious that in the recent past, the complaints lodged for
offences under Section 498A/406 IPC also contain such serious allegations
of sexual misconduct. But that does not mean that the Court can take a
general view that such allegations are always false and levelled only to
ensure that the accused does not get released on bail. Each such case must be
tested on its merits, otherwise, even the genuine victims would suffer. On
the other hand, if after trial, such allegations are found to be false, it is the
complainant de facto , who should face prosecution. Either way, inherent
powers of the High Court cannot be invoked to dump such serious and
heinous allegations under the carpet.
10. In view of the aforesaid, I find it not in the interest of justice to quash
the subject FIR. Therefore, the petition and the accompanying application
are dismissed.

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4af
ec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cac
ca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d
15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965f
f801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2026.05.05 05:02:40 -07'00'
GIRISH
KATHPALIA



GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
MAY 05, 2026/ as

CRL.M.C. 3454/2026 Page 4 of 4 pages

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:05.05.2026
17:10:37