.webp)
The Delhi High Court has declined to interfere with the discharge of accused persons in a matrimonial dispute, holding that the material collected during investigation did not raise the level of grave suspicion required for framing criminal charges.
Justice Madhu Jain dismissed a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which corresponds to the inherent powers earlier exercised under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and Revisional Court.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a matrimonial dispute following the petitioner’s marriage in April 2017. The petitioner alleged harassment over dowry-related demands, including a demand for a Honda City car, besides allegations concerning jewellery, physical and verbal abuse and other matrimonial issues.
She also alleged that her jewellery was taken for safekeeping but was not returned despite repeated demands. Further allegations were made concerning non-consensual sexual acts, pressure to resign from employment and attempts to force her to agree to a divorce.
An FIR was subsequently registered under Sections 498A, 406, 377, 509 and 34 of the IPC. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the husband for several offences and against the remaining accused under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC.
The Trial Court discharged the accused in May 2024. It found, among other things, that the material did not clearly establish entrustment of the stridhan articles and that the allegations concerning Section 377 IPC lacked supporting medical material. The Revisional Court later upheld that decision.
Delhi High Court's Observation
The High Court reiterated that at the stage of framing charges, the Court has to examine whether the investigation material raises a prima facie case or grave suspicion. It is not required to conduct a detailed assessment of the evidence or decide whether the prosecution will ultimately result in conviction.
The bench observed,
“The Court is not expected to conduct a meticulous appreciation of the evidence or determine whether the prosecution is likely to ultimately secure a conviction.”
At the same time, the Court noted that an accused cannot be sent to trial where the basic ingredients of an alleged offence are absent.
On the allegations of cruelty, assault and harassment, Justice Jain found that the Courts below had considered the allegations along with the investigation material and had concurrently concluded that no grave suspicion existed to justify framing charges under Sections 498A, 323 and 509 IPC.
Regarding the allegation concerning stridhan, the High Court noted that the Trial Court had found no clear material establishing entrustment. It also took note of the finding that certain articles were admitted to be in the respondents’ possession and that they had expressed willingness to return them.
The Court further held that its jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS could not be used to substitute its own assessment for that of the Courts below in the absence of patent illegality, perversity or miscarriage of justice.
Decision
Justice Madhu Jain concluded that the orders passed by the Trial Court and Revisional Court suffered from no illegality, perversity, material irregularity or jurisdictional error.
The High Court therefore dismissed the petition and directed that any pending applications would also stand disposed of.
Case Details:
Case Title: XXXXXXXXXXX v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 1781/2025
Judge: Justice Madhu Jain
Decision Date: August 7, 2026
-300x169.webp)
