CRL.M.C./7769/2026 of SUDHIR KUMAR CHATURVEDI & ORS. Vs THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) on 13 October 2026

1. The present petition assails an order dated 18.08.2026 passed by the learned JMFC, Mahila Court-03, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Criminal Case No.14022/2025. By the said order, the petitioners have been summoned as accused. The petition has been filed under Section Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (‘BNSS’), 2023.

2. The petitioner nos.1 and 2 are the father-in-law and the mother-in-law respectively of the respondent no.2/complainant. The petitioner no.3 is the brother-in-law of the respondent no.2/complainant.

3. The case arises from FIR No.924/2023 dated 23.07.2023 under Sections 498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 registered at P.S. Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:15.10.2026 11:33:35 Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C. 7769/2026 Page 2 of 8

Burari, North (Delhi).

4. The respondent no.2/complainant married the son of the petitioner nos.1 and 2 on 23.01.2019. The complaint, which came to be filed on 05.09.2022, attributes the following to the petitioners:

a) After the farewell (vidai), the father-in-law and the mother-in-law (the petitioner nos.1 and 2 respectively) taunted her for bringing less dowry;

b) The day after the wedding, the mother-in-law took all her jewellery for safe keeping. Despite repeated request, the mother-in-law did not return the jewellery and the same is still in respondent no.2’s mother- in-law’s possession;

c) The petitioner nos.1 and 2 used to speak ill of her caste and discriminated against her;

d) The petitioner no.3 (devar) behaved indecently with her. When she objected, he abused her and said that her mother and brother have not fulfilled his family’s demands;

e) The father-in-law (the petitioner no.1) “used to abuse and taunt” her for bringing less dowry and would say that the respondent no.2’s mother has “cut our nose (brought shame on us)” in society.

5. The charge-sheet was initially filed only against the husband under Section 498A/406/377/34 IPC. The petitioners were placed in Column No.12 in the charge-sheet.

6. The Investigating Officer (IO) recorded that no evidence was found against the petitioners and that the Court may summon them if it so wishes.

7. The IO also recorded that the respondent no.2/complainant did not produce any bill of stridhan in response to a Notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:15.10.2026 11:33:35 Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C. 7769/2026 Page 3 of 8

8. On 18.10.2025, the learned JMFC declined cognizance of offence under Section 377 IPC but took cognizance under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and summoned the petitioners. The order dated 18.10.2025 reads as under:-

9. The petitioners’ revision against that order was dismissed as withdrawn. The learned ASJ noted that the same was barred by limitation. Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:15.10.2026 11:33:35 Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C. 7769/2026 Page 4 of 8

The order passed in the revision reads as under:-

10. The petitioners thereafter filed CRL.M.C. 4774/2026 against the order dated 18.10.2025. The same was disposed of vide order dated 29.07.2026 as follows:- Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:15.10.2026 11:33:35 Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C. 7769/2026 Page 5 of 8

Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:15.10.2026 11:33:35 Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C. 7769/2026 Page 6 of 8

11. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the learned JMFC passed the impugned order dated 18.08.2026. The learned JMFC noted the allegations of dowry related taunts, caste based discrimination, abuse, beating and that the jewellery was taken by the mother-in-law for safe custody and not returned. Learned JMFC held that there were specific allegations. The relevant observations in the impugned order are as under:- “From the perusal of the complaint, statements and material filed along with the chargesheet, it is revealed that there are specific allegations regarding dowry-related taunts, abusive conduct, discriminatory treatment, physical harassment/scuffle and non-return of stridhan articles. It is also alleged that the mother-in-law had taken the jewellery of the complainant on the pretext of keeping in safe custody and that the articles were not returned despite demand. There are also allegations of participation of the in-laws in harassment and cruelty meted out to the complainant in the matrimonial home.”

12. It was also noticed that placement in Column No.12 did not bind the Court. The petitioners were, accordingly, directed to remain physically present on 15.10.2026 for the purpose of bail proceedings/compliance of Section 230 BNSS / 207 Cr.P.C. Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:15.10.2026 11:33:35 Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C. 7769/2026 Page 7 of 8

13. In the above backdrop, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners lived with the respondent no.2 only briefly. The complaint was made much after. It is submitted that the allegations are vague and omnibus. It is further submitted that the impugned order puts the petitioners at par with the husband without identifying their role. Reliance is placed on the following judgments: i. Muppidi Lakshmi Narayana Reddy & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 884; ii. Sushila & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 804 iii. Poonam Gandhi v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4662; iv. Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2022) 6 SCC 599; v. Digambar & Anr. V. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3836; and vi. Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Anr., (2025) 3 SCC 735.

14. This Court is not persuaded by the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The impugned order is not a mere repetition of the earlier order. It is a speaking order passed in compliance with the order dated 29.07.2026 passed by this Court in CRL.M.C. 4774/2026.

ANALYSIS

15. It records why the learned JMFC disagreed with the IO and also rightly records that the Magistrate is not bound by the opinion of the IO in Column No.12. At the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate has to only see whether there is sufficient ground to proceed. Whether the material will Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:15.10.2026 11:33:35 Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C. 7769/2026 Page 8 of 8

result in conviction is not to be examined at this stage.

16. The petitioners rely on the principle that general and omnibus allegations against the husband’s relatives without any specific role do not justify their prosecution. That principle is well settled and cannot be disputed. However, it does not apply in the facts of the present case.

17. In the present case, each petitioner is assigned a specific role, as noted hereinabove. The mother-in-law is stated to have taken all the jewellery of Respondent no. 2 on the day after the wedding and has allegedly retained it till date that is the specific allegation which is the core of the offence under Section 406 IPC. The father-in-law is stated to have abused her and taunted her for insufficient dowry. The brother-in-law (devar) is said to have behaved indecently with her and to have abused her with reference to unfulfilled demands. These allegations cannot be described as ‘omnibus’ or ‘vague’. The remaining pleas are a matter of defence. The submissions of the petitioners regarding short period of joint residence with respondent no.2, the separate residence from November, 2019, the delay in filing of the complaint and the absence of bills with regard to the stridhan of respondent no. 2, all require evaluation of evidence. The same cannot be adjudicated in these proceedings at this stage.

18. The petition is therefore, dismissed. Pending applications also stand disposed of.

19. The petitioners would be at liberty to raise all their pleas at the stage of consideration of charge, in accordance with law. The trial Court shall consider the pleas raised by them without being influenced by this Order.

OCTOBER 13, 2026/r SACHIN DATTA, J Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR PATEL Signing Date:15.10.2026 11:33:35 Signature Not Verified