CRL.M.C./3170/2026 of PRATHAM RATHEE AND ANR. Vs STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. on 14 September 2026

O R D E R

% 14.09.2026

1. This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’] seeks quashing of FIR No. 370/2024 dated 10.04.2024, registered at Police Station Paschim Vihar West, Outer District, Delhi under Sections 498A and 406 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’]. The dispute arises from a matrimonial relationship, however, at this stage, the Court is only required to see whether the allegations disclose a case which should proceed in accordance with law.

3. Petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 in the present case were married on 30.10.2017 and a daughter was born from the wedlock. They are stated to have been living separately since 27.05.2021. Petitioner no. 1 instituted divorce proceedings on 25.08.2023. Respondent no.2 thereafter submitted a complaint alleging cruelty, dowry demands and retention of her stridhan, on the basis of which the present FIR was registered against petitioner no.1 and his mother, petitioner no. 2. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed on 27.03.2025.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners draws the attention of this Court to the statement of respondent no. 2 recorded by the Investigating Officer [IO] under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’] on 18.07.2024. In that statement, respondent no. 2 stated that she was residing with her mother and father.

5. Learned counsel further refers to a separate statement shown in the case diary as having been made by Dharamvir Singh, father of respondent no. 2. This statement was also purportedly recorded by the IO under Section 161 CrPC on 18.07.2024. For clarity, it is not disputed that Dharamvir Singh had died in the year 2015.

6. It is submitted that the recording of a statement under Section 161 CrPC in the name of a deceased person demonstrates fabrication and vitiates the investigation. It is further argued that the supplementary charge-sheet was filed only after this Court vide order dated 27.04.2026, called upon the State to file a comprehensive reply. Relying upon Mariam Fasihuddin v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 11 SCC 733, learned counsel submits that a supplementary report under Section 173(8) CrPC must be based upon fresh oral or documentary evidence and cannot be used merely to cure a defect in the original investigation. It is also submitted that the FIR is a counterblast to the divorce proceedings. Reliance is placed upon Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana, (2025) 3 SCC 756.

7. The State on the other hand explains that the name of the deceased father was mentioned because of an inadvertent error and that upon further verification, the statement of Sukhbir Singh Dahiya, uncle of respondent no. 2, was recorded under Section 161 CrPC and placed before the learned Trial Court through a supplementary charge-sheet.

8. This court has heard the submissions made and has also perused the material placed on record.

9. Now, the recording of a statement in the name of a person who had already died is a serious lapse. It does not, however, by itself render the entire prosecution void. The disputed statement was recorded on 18.07.2024, whereas the FIR had already been registered on 10.04.2024 on the complaint of respondent no. 2. The said statement therefore, could not have formed the foundation of the entire material on the basis of which the concerned criminal prosecution was initiated.

10. The supplementary charge-sheet contains the subsequently recorded statement of Sukhbir Singh Dahiya and thus places fresh oral material before the learned Trial Court. Whether the explanation offered by the State is correct, why the error occurred and what evidentiary value should be attached to either statement are all matters for the learned Trial Court to examine at the appropriate stage. The fact that the supplementary charge-sheet was filed after the matter came before this Court does not, by itself, establish that it is illegal.

11. The complaint however, also contains direct allegations against both petitioners regarding demands for cash, jewellery and a car, physical and mental cruelty, and retention of stridhan. Their correctness cannot be tested in proceedings under the present jurisdiction. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana [supra] was decided on its own facts, where the charge-sheet was filed only against the husband and a closure report was filed concerning the other accused. The said decision does not assist the petitioners in the present factual setting.

12. Accordingly, this Court finds no ground for quashing FIR No. 370/2024 dated 10.04.2024, registered at Police Station Paschim Vihar West, Outer District, Delhi under Sections 498A and 406 read with 34 IPC, that would warrant this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction.

13. Therefore, the present petition is dismissed and thereby, disposed of.

14. Nothing hereinabove shall be construed as an expression or adjudication upon the merits of the case.

15. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.

16. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned learned Trial Court for necessary information and compliance.

17. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 14, 2026/b/PG