Inherent jurisdiction cannot revisit concurrent discharge findings absent patent illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice.

The petitioner-complainant married respondent no. 2 on 28 April 2017, followed by a social marriage ceremony on 19 June 2017.

She alleged that respondents nos. 2–5 subjected her to dowry-related harassment, physical and verbal abuse, and demands for a Honda City car; she further alleged that respondent no. 5 took possession of her jewellery for safekeeping and failed to return it, and that respondent no. 2 subjected her to non-consensual sexual acts and assault.

The parties began living separately on 29 March 2018, and the petitioner’s complaint resulted in registration of FIR No. 364/2019 under Sections 498A, 406, 377, 509 and 34 IPC at P.S. Dwarka South.

The chargesheet alleged offences under Sections 377, 323, 498A, 406, 509 and 34 IPC against respondent no. 2, and Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC against the remaining accused.

The Trial Court discharged all respondents, holding, inter alia, that the material did not establish entrustment or dishonest misappropriation under Section 406 IPC and that the allegation under Section 377 IPC lacked supporting medical or other evidence.

The petitioner’s criminal revision was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge on 13 December 2024, who found no grave suspicion warranting framing of charges.

The petitioner thereafter invoked Section 528 BNSS before the High Court.

1. Whether the Trial Court and Revisional Court erred in discharging the respondents for offences under Sections 498A, 323 and 509 IPC despite the allegations of dowry-related harassment, assault and verbal abuse?

2. Whether the material collected during investigation disclosed sufficient ingredients of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC against the respondents in relation to the petitioner’s jewellery and stridhan?

3. Whether respondent no. 2 ought to have been charged under Section 377 IPC on the basis of the petitioner’s allegations notwithstanding the absence of contemporaneous medical or corroborative evidence?

4. Whether the High Court should interfere under Section 528 BNSS with the concurrent orders of discharge passed by the Trial Court and affirmed in revision?

At the stage of framing of charge, the Court must determine whether the material collected during investigation discloses a prima facie case or raises grave suspicion against the accused; it must not conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or determine the likelihood of conviction, although an accused cannot be sent to trial where the basic ingredients of the offence are absent.

The Court relied on State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, 2023 INSC 894; State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, (1996) 4 SCC 659; State of M.P. v. Mohan Lal Soni, (2000) 6 SCC 338; and Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368, concerning the prima facie/grave-suspicion test.

The Court also considered the principle stated in Aluri Venkata Ramana v. Aluri Thirupathi Rao, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 5473, that Section 498A IPC covers both wilful conduct causing physical or mental cruelty and harassment connected with unlawful demands.

Section 406 IPC requires entrustment of property and dishonest misappropriation or conversion; Sections 498A, 323, 377 and 509 IPC require the prosecution material to disclose their respective essential ingredients.

The inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C., is not to be used for substituting the High Court’s assessment for concurrent findings of the subordinate courts absent patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice.

The High Court held that the Trial Court and Revisional Court had applied the correct charge-stage test and had concurrently found that the allegations and investigation material did not raise the requisite grave suspicion for offences under Sections 498A, 323 and 509 IPC.

Regarding Section 406 IPC, the material did not clearly establish entrustment of the jewellery to the accused or dishonest misappropriation; moreover, the Trial Court noted that the allegations of entrustment were directed against Madhu Chopra, whereas the chargesheet proceeded against Aditya Chopra, and that certain articles had been admitted and offered for return.

As to Section 377 IPC, the Court accepted that the prosecution principally relied on the petitioner’s allegations, without contemporaneous medical or other supporting material; the absence of such material was considered relevant to the question whether grave suspicion arose at the charge stage.

The Court therefore found no patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the concurrent discharge orders and declined to re-appreciate the evidence under Section 528 BNSS.

It held that the material on record did not disclose sufficient grounds for framing charges under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 377, 509 and 34 IPC, and that the concurrent orders of discharge did not suffer from illegality, perversity, material irregularity or jurisdictional error.

The petition under Section 528 BNSS was accordingly dismissed, and any pending applications were also disposed of.