CRL.M.C./4240/2026 of VINAY SINGH NEGI & ORS. Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. on 7 October 2026

O R D E R

% 07.10.2026

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the “BNSS”) seeking quashing of FIR No. 0140/2026 dated 25.03.2026, registered at Police Station Fatehpur Beri, under Sections 85, 316(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, (hereinafter referred to as the “BNS”) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

3. The facts of the case are that the marriage between Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 was solemnised on 14.02.2025 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of Petitioner No.1. The parties had been acquainted since 2021 and were in a relationship prior to their marriage.

4. After the marriage, matrimonial differences arose between Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2, who left the matrimonial home on 26.09.2025 and thereafter lodged a complaint dated 02.10.2025 alleging cruelty, dowry demands and harassment against the Petitioners.

5. The Petitioners made several attempts to reconcile. Petitioner No.1 issued a legal notice dated 16.10.2025 seeking resumption of matrimonial cohabitation and subsequently filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, pending before the learned Tis Hazari Courts. Respondent No.2 thereafter initiated proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and expressed her desire for divorce during mediation, which failed on 12.05.2026.

6. In the meantime, FIR No. 0140/2026 dated 25.03.2026 was registered at PS Fatehpur Beri under Sections 85, 316(2) and 3(5) of the BNS against the Petitioners.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned FIR has been lodged in connection with a purely matrimonial dispute and is mala fide, with the intention of harassing, humiliating and pressurising the petitioners. He submits that the allegations in the FIR are vague, general and omnibus, particularly against Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, and no specific incident, date or overt act has been attributed to them. He further submits that there is no material in the complaint or the FIR to prima facie establish the ingredients of the alleged offences against Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 and they have been implicated merely because they are the parents of Petitioner No.1.

8. He submits that the law is settled that the relatives of the husband cannot be prosecuted in matrimonial disputes on the basis of vague and general allegations without any specific material showing their involvement.

He further submits that the FIR is a counterblast to the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by Petitioner No.1 and the legal notice dated 16.10.2025 seeking resumption of matrimonial cohabitation.

9. Learned counsel further submits that Respondent No.2 stated during the mediation proceedings that she was not interested in reconciliation and wanted divorce. He submits that even prior to registration of the FIR, Respondent No.2 had demanded ₹4 lakhs from Petitioner No.1 for settlement and divorce, which, according to him, shows that the criminal proceedings have been initiated to pressurise the petitioners and with a mala fide intention.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arti Mehta and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 933.

11. Learned APP for the State submits that the FIR was registered on the complaint of the complainant, who alleged physical and mental cruelty, assault, intimidation, sexual harassment and dowry-related harassment by her husband, Vinay Singh Negi, as well as allegations of failure to intervene against her parents-in-law, Mohan Singh Negi and Laxmi Devi Negi. During investigation, the complainant and relevant witnesses were examined, and marriage-related documents, bills, bank/financial material and other supporting documents were collected and verified. All three accused joined the investigation pursuant to notices issued under Section 35(3) BNSS. Investigation has since been completed and charge-sheet has been filed against all three accused for offences punishable under Sections 85/316(2)/3(5) BNS. Cognizance of the offences has been taken by the learned Trial Court and the matter is presently pending before the learned Trial Court.

12. This Court has considered the allegations contained in the complaint and the submissions advanced by both the parties.

13. A perusal of the complaint shows that the principal allegations of physical and mental cruelty, assault, threats, demand for money and intimidation are against Petitioner No.1. As regards Petitioner Nos.2 and 3, Respondent No.2 has alleged that when she informed her in-laws about the conduct of Petitioner No.1, they asked her to remain silent and allegedly suppressed her by stating that she came from a poor family. She further alleged that they spoke disrespectfully about her deceased mother and insulted her. Respondent No.2 also stated that she informed her mother-in-law about the alleged conduct of Petitioner No.1, but she declined to intervene and told her not to discuss such matters as they were “bedroom issues”. She further alleged that she informed her in-laws about the incident dated 26.06.2025, but they did not take any action. Relevant portion of the complaint produced hereinbelow: “At the insistence of my husband and in-laws, I took loans beyond my financial capacity and arranged the wedding in a grand manner. After the marriage, I lived with my in-laws in Burari for two months. During that time, I caught my husband engaging in inappropriate conversations with another woman on chat. When I confronted him, he physically assaulted me. XXX However, even after I returned, he continued to beat me. He would threaten me by showing a knife, both on the road and at home, and would intimidate me. XXX They have threatened to defame me and have been harassing my relatives by calling them repeatedly. My entire in-laws’ family would repeatedly prevent me from visiting my parental home. XXX

On 26/09/2025, he was taking me on a bike from Central Secretariat. On the way, we stopped near India and sat there for a while. During that time, I told him that I would come to his house on Ashtami, but on Navami I have to perform pooja at my own home in Aya Nagar. Over this small matter, he became extremely aggressive, dragged me, slapped me, and started pulling…… XXX When I told my in-laws about all this, they asked me to remain silent and suppressed me by saying that I come from a poor family. They also spoke disrespectfully about my mother, who is no longer alive, and insulted me. Even when Vinay was at fault, his family always supported him.”

14. At this stage, this Court is required to examine whether the allegations, taken at their face value and without embarking upon an appreciation of evidence, disclose the commission of the offences alleged. The allegations in the present case cannot be said to be wholly vague or devoid of specific particulars so as to warrant interference in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

15. Unlike Arti Mehta (supra), the allegations here are not merely general allegations of support or non-intervention. Specific conduct has been attributed to Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, including asking the complainant to remain silent, making derogatory remarks about her parental background and deceased mother, and failing to intervene despite being informed of the alleged conduct of Petitioner No.1. Thus, the allegations cannot, at this stage, be termed purely omnibus or bald.

16. The contentions of the petitioners that the FIR is a counterblast to the proceedings initiated by Petitioner No.1 and that Respondent No.2 had demanded money for settlement and divorce involve disputed questions of fact. Such issues cannot be conclusively adjudicated in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court at this stage.

17. It is also relevant to note that the investigation has already been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed against all the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 85/316(2)/3(5) of the BNS. Cognizance has also been taken by the learned Trial Court. At this stage, this Court would not undertake an appreciation of the evidentiary material collected during investigation or conduct a mini-trial to determine the truthfulness of the allegations.

18. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

19. Nothing contained in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court on the merits of the case, and the learned Trial Court shall proceed with the matter independently and decide the same on its own merits.

20. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J OCTOBER 7, 2026/prg/rm