CRL.M.C./5145/2026 of SOBAN SINGH @ RAJIV AND ANR Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR on 24 July 2026

O R D E R

% 24.07.2026

1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”], seeking the following reliefs: “In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

(i) QUASH THE FIR: Quash the FIR No. 0164/2023 dated 21.11.2023 registered at P.S. Mandir Marg, New Delhi under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered against the Petitioners;

(ii) QUASH PROCEEDINGS: Quash and set aside the summoning order dated 30.03.2026 and the subsequent process "Summons to Soban Singh @ Rajiv" issued by the Court of Ms. Tabassum Khan, JIMFC (Mahila Court 02), New Delhi, directing the Petitioner to appear on 16.07.2026;

(iii) Pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

2. I have heard Mr. Aftab Husain, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

3. Respondent No. 2 got married to Omkar Singh [hereinafter, “the husband”] on 19.02.2022. Petitioner No. 1 is the brother-in-law of the husband [sister’s husband], and petitioner No. 2 is the mother of the husband.

4. In the present case, respondent No. 2 filed a complaint against the husband and his family members, including the present petitioners, which culminated into the impugned FIR. A chargesheet has also been filed before the Trial Court.

5. The Trial Court thereafter issued summons to petitioner No. 1 vide order dated 30.03.2026. I am informed that the arguments on charge are yet to be heard.

6. The contention of Mr. Husain is that the chargesheet does not make out any case against the petitioners, and the criminal proceedings therefore ought to be quashed at this stage.

7. As far as the petitioner No. 1 is concerned, paragraph 29 of the FIR, as reproduced in the chargesheet, reads as follows: “29. On 17.07.2020 Mr. Rajiv Chand (Jija of my husband) called to my Taiji (Smt. Draupadi), one of my parental aunties at Dehradun, suggesting that I and my father to give the divorce my husband (Omkar), otherwise they will assassinate her character and no one would re-marry her from village to Delhi.”

8. As far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned, it is alleged in the impugned FIR that after the marriage, the gifts given to the respondent No. 2 were taken away by petitioner No. 2 and her daughters. It is also stated that the petitioner No. 2 and other relatives asked for Holi gifts from respondent No. 2’s parents and asked her to bring Rs. 2 lakhs from her father to replace the poor-quality goods gifted in marriage.

9. I am informed that statements of respondent No. 2, her father, and other relatives have been recorded in support of the prosecution case.

10. Having regard to the aforesaid material in the chargesheet, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for interference at this stage under

Section 528 of the BNSS.

11. The petitioners will have the opportunity to argue with regard to the sufficiency of material available on record before the Trial Court at the stage of arguments on charge and will also have remedies available to them in the event they wish to challenge any charges framed against them.

12. The jurisdiction of this Court to quash proceedings at this stage is to be exercised as per principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Shaileshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat [2024 SCC OnLine SC 5569], as follows: “8.⁠ ⁠On the authority of the aforesaid decisions, law seems to be well- settled that the High Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C. retains the power to quash an FIR, even after charge-sheet under Section 173(2) thereof is filed, provided a satisfaction is reached, inter alia, that either the FIR and the charge-sheet read together, even accepted as true and correct without rebuttal, does not disclose commission of any offence or that continuation of proceedings arising out of such an FIR would in fact be an abuse of the process of law as well as of the Court given the peculiar circumstances of each particular case.”

13. In the present case, having regard to the allegations contained in the impugned FIR, coupled with the fact that the prosecution case is supported by the statements of respondent No. 2, her father, and other relatives, I am of the considered view that this is not a case where it can be said that no offence is disclosed against the petitioners. At this stage, there is also no material on record to indicate that either the registration of the FIR or the filing of the chargesheet amounts to an abuse of the process of law. No other ground warranting interference has been urged on behalf of the petitioners.

14. Instead, the grounds urged by the petitioners pertain to the sufficiency of the material adduced in the chargesheet and not to any of the other grounds, which may be available. The judgments in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335] and Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, [(2021) 19 SCC 401], specifically exclude considerations of this nature at this stage.

15. The petition, alongwith pending applications, is thus, in my view, premature, and is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioners to raise their respective submissions before the Trial Court, at the stage of arguments on charge/discharge application, if any. Their remedies against any order framing charges against them also remain reserved. PRATEEK JALAN, J JULY 24, 2026 “B”/MK/