Smt Rajesh vs State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~111
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
nd
% Date of Decision: 02 November, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010525682026
+ CRL.M.C. 8172/2026, CRL.M.A. 34287/2026 & CRL.M.A.
34288/2026

SMT RAJESH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Soumya Chakraborty, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Jai Raj Singh, Adv.
Mob: 9560302345
versus
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, APP for the
State, with Mr. Siddharth Shankar Jha
and Ms. Kalpana Jha, Advs.
Mr. Abhimanyu, SI, PS Sonia Vihar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral):
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), read with Article 227 of the
Constitution of India (“Constitution”), seeking setting aside of the common
th
order dated 29 May, 2026, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge
(“ASJ”) (Special Judge NDPS), North East District, Karkardooma Court,
Delhi, in Criminal Revision Nos. 120/2025 and 121/2025 , to the extent that
it dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner, and consequently,
th
the order on charge dated 30 August, 2025, passed by the Judicial
Magistrate First Class (“JMFC”), Mahila Court-02, North East District,
Karkardooma Court, Delhi, in CR Case 1477/2025 , insofar as it directs the
framing of charges qua the petitioner herein.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:15:38
Page 1 of 8

2. The brief facts, relevant for deciding the present petition, are as
follows:
2.1. The present proceedings arise out of the First Information Report
th
(“FIR”) being FIR No. 147/2017 dated 10 June, 2017, registered under
Sections 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), at Police Station
(“PS”) Sonia Vihar, North East, Delhi.
2.2. The said FIR arises out of a complaint made to the Women Crime
Branch, North-East District, Delhi, and came to be lodged at the instance of
respondent no. 2, i.e., the daughter-in-law of the petitioner.
th
2.3. The Trial Court vide order dated 30 August, 2025, passed in CR
Cases 1477/2023 , framed charges against the petitioner under Sections
498A/406/34 of the IPC.
2.4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a criminal revision petition, assailing
th
the order dated 30 August, 2025. However, the same came to be dismissed
th
vide common order dated 29 May, 2026, passed in Criminal Revision Nos.
120/2025 and 121/2025.
2.5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the present petition has been filed.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
complaint and the FIR do not disclose the ingredients of either Section 498A
or Section 406 of the IPC, against the petitioner.
4. He submits that all the other family members who were also named in
FIR No. 147/2017 have been discharged, except the mother-in-law and the
husband of respondent no. 2.
5. He further submits that respondent no. 2 brought the alleged dowry
articles of her own volition, as is manifest from the language of the
complaint, wherein it is stated that, since the demand was made 10-15 days
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:15:38
Page 2 of 8

before the marriage, the dowry articles were brought by respondent no. 2
after her marriage.
6. It is submitted that there is no allegation that the dowry articles or the
jewellery, were forcibly taken by the petitioner.
7. Thus, it is submitted that since there are no specific allegations against
the petitioner, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the charges
framed against the petitioner deserve to be quashed.
8. Per contra , learned Additional Public Prosecutor (“APP”) for the
State vehemently opposes the present petition and submits that the
complaint as well as the FIR categorically disclose specific allegations
against the petitioner.
9. He draws the attention of this Court to FIR No. 147/2017 , wherein it
is categorically recorded that, upon the petitioner’s demand, respondent no.
2 handed over her entire jewellery to the petitioner, which was not returned
despite repeated requests.
10. He further draws the attention of this Court to the fact that the FIR
clearly records allegations of demand for dowry. He, therefore, submits that
the impugned orders have been rightly passed in the facts and circumstances
of the present case.
11. In response, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the present FIR has been lodged on the basis of the same
allegations as were made in the previous FIR, which was earlier withdrawn
by respondent no. 2.
12. Thus, he submits that the allegations in the second FIR are based on
conjectures and surmises, and were made more than a year after the earlier
complaint was withdrawn. On this account, no case is made out against the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:15:38
Page 3 of 8

petitioner.
13. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, this
Court notes that the contents of the FIR, as well as the charge sheet, clearly
bring forth that the petitioner used to pressurise respondent no. 2 to bring
more dowry and abused her.
14. Further, the allegations against the petitioner herein are very specific
that, upon the asking of the petitioner, her jewellery was given by
respondent no. 2, and the same has not been returned by the petitioner,
though respondent no. 2 asked for the same.
15. This Court takes note of the categorical findings made by the learned
th
Revisional Court in the impugned order dated 29 May, 2026, which is
reproduced as under:
“xxx xxxx xxx

15. At the stage of framing the charge, the Court has to prima
facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused. The Court is not required to
appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the
materials produced are sufficient or not for conviction of the
accused. If the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is
made out for proceeding further then a charge has to be
framed.

16. Perusal of the Ld. Trial Court record shows that the
complainant (respondent no. 2 herein) lodged a complaint to
the police against the accused persons including the petitioners
herein regarding misappropriation of stridhan, harassment
and torture with the complainant and considering the
allegations to be truthful, the FIR was registered against the
accused persons u/s. 498-A/406 IPC.

17. After taking prima facie view, the Ld. Trial was pleased to
passed the impugned order dated 30.08.2025, vide which, the Ld.
Trial Court found sufficient ground to proceed against accused
Manish and Rajesh in respect of offences punishable u/s. 498-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:15:38
Page 4 of 8

A/34 IPC. Ld. Trial Court was also pleased to find sufficient
ground to proceed against accused Rajesh in respect of offence
punishable u/s. 406 IPC and vide impugned order dated
30.08.2025, Ld. Trial Court directed framing of charges against
the accused persons (petitioners herein), accordingly.

xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)

th
16. This Court also records that the Revisional Court vide order dated 29
May, 2026, has clearly held that in view of the complaint and the statement
made by the complainant, there are specific allegations against the
petitioner. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under:
“xxx xxx xxx

20. After going through the trial court record, especially
complaint made by the complainant and also her statement u/s.
161 CrPC, this court is satisfied that there are specific
allegations against the accused persons i.e. the petitioners
herein and Ld. Trial Court has rightly passed the order on
charge. In her complaint, the complainant has very specifically
stated that the petitioner Rajesh i.e. her mother-in-law took all
her jewelle1y articles and when she asked for the return of the
same, petitioner Rajesh refused to return the same. There are
specific allegations of harassment and cruelty also, against
both the petitioners herein. Admittedly, at the stage of framing
of charges, Ld. Trial Court is not expected to conduct a roving
enquiry, so as to dete1mine the truthfulness of the allegations
made in the complaint. The veracity of the allegations can be
tested only during trial. At this stage, Ld. Trial Court is only
required to see prima facie case and whether the nature of
accusation is such that the accused persons might have
committed the alleged offence.

xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
17. This Court has perused the orders passed by the learned Revisional
Court as well as the learned Trial Court, and finds no illegality or perversity
in the same.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:15:38
Page 5 of 8

18. The Revisional Court has rightly held that a prima facie case exists
against the petitioner, as there are specific allegations on entrustment of
jewellery and also with regard to dowry demands.
19. This Court notes that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court only
has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused and is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation
of evidence or a mini trial.
20. This Court is in agreement with the Trial Court that at the stage of
framing of charges, the Court is not required to appreciate the evidence and
arrive at a conclusion as to whether the material produced is sufficient for
the conviction of the accused.
21. In this regard, reference is made to the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Versus Aryan Singh
and Others, (2023) 18 SCC 399 , wherein, the following was held :
“xxx xxx xxx

6. From the impugned common judgment and order [Aryan
Singh v. CBI, 2022 SCC OnLine P&H 4158] passed by the
High Court, it appears that the High Court has dealt with the
proceedings before it, as if, the High Court was conducting a
mini trial and/or the High Court was considering the
applications against the judgment and order passed by the
learned trial court on conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal
principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of
the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under
Section 482CrPC, the Court is not required to conduct the mini
trial. The High Court in the common impugned judgment and
order has observed that the charges against the accused are not
proved. This is not the stage where the
prosecution/investigating agency is/are required to prove the
charges. The charges are required to be proved during the trial
on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution/investigating
agency.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:15:38
Page 6 of 8

7. Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in going in
detail in the allegations and the material collected during the
course of the investigation against the accused, at this stage. At
the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers
under Section 482CrPC, the Court has a very limited
jurisdiction and is required to consider “whether any sufficient
material is available to proceed further against the accused for
which the accused is required to be tried or not”.

8. One another reason pointed by the High Court is that the
initiation of the criminal proceedings/proceedings is malicious.
At this stage, it is required to be noted that the investigation was
handed over to the CBI pursuant to the directions issued by the
High Court. That thereafter, on conclusion of the investigation,
the accused persons have been charge-sheeted. Therefore, the
High Court has erred in observing at this stage that the initiation
of the criminal proceedings/proceedings is malicious. Whether
the criminal proceedings was/were malicious or not, is not
required to be considered at this stage. The same is required to
be considered at the conclusion of the trial. In any case, at this
stage, what is required to be considered is a prima facie case
and the material collected during the course of the
investigation, which warranted the accused to be tried.

xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
22. Further, in the case of Abhishek Singh Versus Ajay Kumar and
Others, (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1313 , the following was reiterated by the
Supreme Court:
“xxx xxx xxx

9. The scope of the Court’s power to quash and set aside
proceedings is well-settled to warrant any restatement. While
the arguments advanced have the potential to raise many issues
for consideration, we must first satisfy ourselves as to the
propriety of the exercise of such power by the High Court. The
task of the High Court, when called upon to adjudicate an
application seeking to quash the proceedings, is to see whether,
prima facie, an offence is made out or not. It is not to examine
whether the charges may hold up in the Court. In doing so, the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:15:38
Page 7 of 8

area of action is circumscribed. In Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab,
it was held:
“8. It is no more res integra that exercise of power under
Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal proceeding is only when
an allegation made in the FIR or the charge-sheet constitutes
the ingredients of the offence/offences alleged. Interference by
the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is to prevent the abuse
of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice. It is settled law that the evidence produced by the
accused in his defence cannot be looked into by the court,
except in very exceptional circumstances, at the initial stage of
the criminal proceedings. It is trite law that the High Court
cannot embark upon the appreciation of evidence while
considering the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC for
quashing criminal proceedings. It is clear from the law laid
down by this Court that if a prima facie case is made out
disclosing the ingredients of the offence alleged against the
accused, the Court cannot quash a criminal proceeding.”
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
23. In view of the prima facie allegations made against the petitioner, it
would certainly not be justified for this court to invoke the inherent powers
and overstep into the jurisdiction of trial court
24. Accordingly, after hearing the parties and perusing the record, this
th
Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned orders dated 29 May,
th
2026, and 30 August, 2025, passed in Criminal Revision Nos. 120/2025
and 121/2025 , and CR Cases 1477/2023 , respectively.
25. The present petition, along with the pending applications, is
accordingly dismissed.


MINI PUSHKARNA, J
NOVEMBER 2, 2026/ SK

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:10.11.2026
21:15:38
Page 8 of 8