Final Order 9

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: CR No. 456/2026 ‘P’ v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ars. Page No. 1 of 11
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANKIT MEHTA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.: DLCT01-011084-2026
CRIMINAL REVISION No.: 456/2026
‘P’
D/o. Shyam Babu
W/o. NS
R/o. B-1578, Gali No. 8, Baba Colony,
Burari, Delhi-110084 … REVISIONIST/
PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
through SHO, PS Burari, Delhi
2. SS
(Mother-in-law)
3. BS
(Father-in-law)
4. NS
(Brother-in-law)
R/o. H.No. 1281/3, Gali No. 3, B-Block,
Baba Colony, Burari, Delhi-110084
… RESPONDENTS
Date of e-filing : 12.06.2026
Date of institution : 01.07.2026
Date when judgment was reserved : 07.10.2026
Date when judgment is pronounced : 10.10.2026
J U D G M E N T
1. The present revision petition has been filed under
Section 438 read with Section 440 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), seeking setting aside of the
order dated 04.04.2026 (‘impugned order’), passed by the Ld.
JMFC, Mahila Court-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
-- 1 of 11 --
CR No. 456/2026 ‘P’ v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ars. Page No. 2 of 11
(‘Ld. JMFC/Ld. Trial Court’), in case bearing, ‘State v. NS,
Cr. Case No. 14408/2024’, emanating out of FIR no. 95/2023
dated 28.01.2023, P.S. Burari, for the offences under Sections
498-A/406/34 IPC. Alongwith said revision petition two
separate applications were moved, one under Section 5 of The
Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 19 days in
filing the present revision petition, and another for grant of stay
of trial before Ld. JMFC, Mahila Court, Central District, Tis
Hazari Courts, Delhi.
2. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist submitted that vide
impugned order dated 04.04.2026, Ld. Trial Court had
discharged respondent no. 2 (SS) and respondent no. 4 (NS) for
the offences under Section 498-A/406 IPC; further, Ld. Trial
Court had discharged respondent no. 4 (NS) for the offence
under Section 354 IPC; and respondent no. 3 was discharged
for the offence under Section 406 IPC.
Ld. Counsel further submitted that it is well settled
that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is not required
to meticulously examine the evidence or conduct a detailed
appreciation thereof. Ld. Counsel submitted that the court is
only required to see whether a prima facie case is made out on
the basis of material on record, or not. Ld. Counsel further
submitted that it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence
that the Court at the stage of framing of charge cannot conduct
a mini trial or weigh the evidence as if finally deciding the case.
Further, as per Ld. Counsel it is also settled law that if the
material placed before the Court, taken at face value, discloses
the ingredients of the offences, the Court must proceed to frame
charge.
-- 2 of 11 --
CR No. 456/2026 ‘P’ v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ars. Page No. 3 of 11
Ld. Counsel submits that in matrimonial offences
under Section 498A IPC, Courts have consistently held that
specific allegations of cruelty, harassment and dowry demands
made against family members are sufficient to proceed to trial.
Ld. Counsel submits that stridhan property remains the
exclusive property of the wife and its unlawful retention by in-
laws constitutes criminal breach of trust.
Ld. Counsel submits that revisional Courts can
interfere, where the findings of the Trial Court are perverse and
based on misreading of evidence, or suffer from non-
application of mind.
Ld. Counsel thus, prayed that this Court may set-
aside the impugned order dated 04.04.2026 passed by the Ld.
Trial Court.
3. In so far as delay in filing present revision petition is
concerned, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist submitted that
limitation period for filing the criminal revision petition is 19
days from the date of the impugned order. Ld. Counsel
submitted that the delay in filing the present revision petition
was neither intentional nor deliberate. Ld. Counsel submitted
that he being counsel for the revisionist, was not able to file the
present revision petition within the period of limitation
provided under law as his mother was not well and was
hospitalized during the period 21.04.2026 to 26.04.2026, and
thereafter, from 28.04.2026 till 07.05.2026. Ld. Counsel
submitted that subsequently, some time was spent in obtaining
the certified copy of impugned order, finding out the exact
anomaly and thereafter drafting the present revision petition.
Ld. Counsel submitted that there was ‘sufficient cause’ within
-- 3 of 11 --
CR No. 456/2026 ‘P’ v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ars. Page No. 4 of 11
the meaning of Section 5 of Limitation Act and as such delay
of 19 days in filing the present revision petition may be
condoned.
4. Ld. Addl. PP for the State/respondent no. 1 submitted
that the impugned order was passed by the Ld. Trial Court after
due appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the present
case and, as such, deserves no interference by this Court. Ld.
Addl. PP for the State submitted that the challenged order is
legally sound and correct, having been passed by Ld. Trial
Court fully aware of the facts and legal principles involved.
5. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2, 3 and 4 submitted
that present revision petition was liable to be dismissed. Ld.
Counsel submitted that vide impugned order dated 04.04.2026,
Ld. JMFC had given her detailed findings and there was no
reason to set-aside the said order. Ld. Counsel submitted that
the Ld. JMFC after carefully going through the record,
observed that no case was made out against respondent no. 2
under Section 498-A/406/34 IPC; no case was made out against
respondent no. 3 under Section 406/34 IPC. Ld. Counsel
submitted that in so far as charge under Section 498-A IPC was
concerned against respondent no. 3, respondent no. 3 shall take
appropriate remedies as may be available to him under the law.
Ld. Counsel submitted that in the same vein Ld. JMFC had
rightly observed that no charge was made out against
respondent no. 4 under Section 498-A/406/354/34 IPC. Ld.
Counsel submitted that the complainant had made bald and
sweeping allegations against respondents and Ld. JMFC
categorically observed that Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly
deprecated the false practice of roping in all the family
-- 4 of 11 --
CR No. 456/2026 ‘P’ v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ars. Page No. 5 of 11
members and relatives of husband. Ld. Counsel submitted that
order dated 04.04.2026 passed by Ld. JMFC did not warrant
interference by this Court.
In so far as, application filed by the revisionist under
Section 5 of Limitation Act was concerned, Ld. Counsel for
respondents submitted that the present revision petition may be
dismissed on the aspect of delay itself.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
6. This Court heard the parties at length and has gone
through the record carefully.
7. Briefly stated, FIR bearing no. 95/2023 dated
28.01.2023 was lodged at P.S. Burari, for the offences under
Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC on the basis of complaint filed by
the complainant namely, ‘P’ (i.e. revisionist herein) against (1)
NS (husband), (2) BS (father-in-law), (3) SS (mother-in-law)
and (4) NS (brother-in-law), for the offences of cruelty and
criminal breach of trust.
8. At the outset, for the reasons stated in the
application seeking condonation of delay of 19 days in filing
the present revision petition, the said delay is condoned by this
Court especially under the background that Ld. Counsel for
revisionist had submitted that due to his personal difficulty, the
present revision petition could not be filed in a timely manner.
There is no reason to penalize the revisionist for the personal
difficulty of her lawyer.
9. At this stage, it is expedient to note that it is not
disputed between the parties that marriage between NS and
revisionist had taken place on 25.09.2017 at an Arya Samaj
-- 5 of 11 --
CR No. 456/2026 ‘P’ v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ars. Page No. 6 of 11
Mandir. On 16.08.2022, a complaint was made at the CAW
Cell by revisionist. Subsequently, on 28.01.2023, present FIR
bearing no. 95/2023 was lodged at PS Burari. On 20.04.2024
statement of complainant (revisionist herein) was recorded
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. As per record, on 22.08.2024,
chargesheet in the present matter was filed against four persons
namely, NS (husband of the revisionist); SS (mother-in-law of
the revisionist); BS (father-in-law of the revisionist) and NS
(brother-in-law of the revisionist). Vide order dated
04.04.2026, Ld. JMFC, Mahila Court-03, Central District, Tis
Hazari Courts, Delhi, passed an order on charge after hearing
arguments from both the sides. A short table has been prepared
below for convenience to understand as to the Sections under
which accused persons were discharged by Ld. JMFC :-
Name Relation Accused/ Respondent Discharged
under Section
NS Husband Accused No 1 before Ld. JMFC-
Not Impleaded herein
NA
SS Mother in law Accused No 2 before Ld. JMFC-
Respondent No 2 herein
406/498A/34 IPC
BS Father in Law Accused No 3 before Ld. JMFC-
Respondent No 3 herein
406 IPC
(Charged under
Section 498A IPC)
NS Brother in Law Accused No 4 before Ld. JMFC-
Respondent No 4 herein
406/498A/34/354
IPC
Section 405 IPC
10. Section 406 IPC provides punishment for criminal
breach of trust. The same is defined under Section 405 IPC and
is reproduced as under :-
405. Criminal breach of trust
Whoever, being in any manner entrusted
with property, or with any dominion over property,
-- 6 of 11 --
CR No. 456/2026 ‘P’ v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ars. Page No. 7 of 11
dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own
use that property, or dishonestly uses of disposes of
that property in violation of any direction of law
prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be
discharge, or of any legal contract, express or implied,
which he has made touching the discharge of such
trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do,
commits “criminal breach of trust”.
11. Respondent no. 2, respondent no. 3 and respondent no. 4
were chargesheeted under Section 406 IPC. Vide order dated
04.04.2026, Ld. JMFC had observed that the two essential
ingredients of Section 405 IPC read with Section 406 IPC were
entrustment of property and dishonest misappropriation/misuse
of the property dishonestly.
During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for
revisionist argued that there were allegations against
respondent no. 2 that the gold jewellery of revisionist had been
kept by respondent no. 2. However, when this Court asked Ld.
Counsel to point out any allegation of dishonest
misappropriation, Ld. Counsel fairly submitted that there was
no such allegation. This Court finds that Ld. JMFC had also
categorically observed that;
“...Qua offence under Section 406 IPC, even if the
allegations against accused no. 2 are taken at face
value, the essential ingredients of entrustment and
dishonest misappropriation are not disclosed. There is
no clear allegation as to when such entrustment took
place, or that the same were demanded back and
refused. A mere allegation that the jewellery items
were being kept by accused no. 2 is not sufficient, in
the absence of clear entrustment and refusal, to make
out a prima facie case under Section 406 IPC…..
Accordingly, no prima facie offence under Section
406 IPC is made out against accused persons no. 2 to
4…”
12. In so far as, respondents no. 3 and 4 are concerned, yet
again Ld. JMFC rightly observed that in fact there was no
-- 7 of 11 --
CR No. 456/2026 ‘P’ v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ars. Page No. 8 of 11
specific allegation against the said two respondents qua Section
406 IPC at all.
Thus, this Court finds that there is no occasion for
this Court to interfere in the findings of Ld. JMFC qua Section
406 IPC with respect to respondents no. 2, 3 and 4.
Section 354 IPC
13. At the outset, it is expedient to reproduce Section 354
IPC as under;
354. Assault or criminal force to woman with
intent to outrage her modest
Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to
any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be
likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which shall not be less than one year but
which may extend to five years, and shall also be
liable to fine.
Thus, as can be seen, Section 354 IPC provides
punishment for outraging modesty of a woman. In any society,
it is of paramount importance that woman feel safe within their
surroundings. In the same breath, it is also essential to weed out
any false complaints in this regard. In so far as, Section 354 IPC
is concerned, this Court finds that in the FIR lodged at the
instance of revisionist, it was alleged that one day while
returning from Chandigarh to Delhi via car, respondent no. 4
i.e. brother-in-law of the revisionist, did dirty talk with
revisionist and tried to harass her, and that revisionist somehow
managed to save herself.
In so far as charge under Section 354 IPC is
concerned, Ld. JMFC observed that the allegations regarding
offence under Section 354 IPC were quite omnibus and only a
bald allegation had been levelled. This Court prima facie agrees
-- 8 of 11 --
CR No. 456/2026 ‘P’ v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ars. Page No. 9 of 11
with the observation passed by Ld. JMFC as there was no
reference to any specific date on which revisionist and
respondent no. 4 had allegedly travelled together from
Chandigarh to Delhi. The revisionist did not even specify as to
what language (for dirty talk) was employed by respondent no.
4, either in FIR or in her statement recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C. and which could have enabled this Court to come to a
prima facie view whether the words used by the respondent no.
4 were obscene/inappropriate, or not. Further, there is nothing
on record to tell as to what exactly respondent no. 4 had done
in the car to suggest harassment. There is no explanation as to
why no complaint in this regard or FIR was immediately lodged
by the revisionist against respondent no. 4.
Thus, this Court is of the opinion that on the basis of
material available on record, Ld. JMFC had rightly observed
that prima facie no offence under Section 354 IPC was made
out against respondent no. 4.
Section 498-A IPC
14. It is germane to note that Section 498-A IPC stipulates
as under:
498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty Whoever, being the
husband or the relative of the husband of a woman,
subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished
with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation: For the purposes of this section,
“cruelty” means-
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is
likely to drive the worman to commit suicide or to
cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health
(whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment
is with a view to coercing her or any person related to
her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or
-- 9 of 11 --
CR No. 456/2026 ‘P’ v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ars. Page No. 10 of 11
valuable security or is on account of failure by her or
any person related to her to meet such demand.
15. In so far as Section 498-A IPC is concerned it is
reiterated that respondents no. 2 and 4 were discharged for the
said offence and prima facie material was found to frame
charge against respondent no. 3 under Section 498-A IPC.
16. In regard to Section 498-A IPC, Ld. JMFC observed that
allegations against respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 4 were
quite general in nature without any specific date or time,
lacking specificity. Ld. JMFC observed that the complaint and
statements did not prima facie disclose with specificity when
any demand of dowry was made, in what manner it was made,
how the complainant (revisionist herein) was subjected to
cruelty on that account. In fact, this Court finds that there is no
allegation against respondent no. 4 at all regarding any alleged
demand for dowry. Thus, this Court is of the view that Ld.
JMFC has rightly observed that prima facie on the basis of
material on record, there was no sufficient material to frame
charge against respondents no. 2 and 4 under Section 498-A
IPC as well.
17. Thus, in totality and in view of the aforesaid discussion,
this Court is of the view that there is no reason for this Court to
interfere with the findings of Ld. JMFC, Mahila Court-03,
Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, given vide order dated
04.04.2026 in case bearing, ‘State v. NS, Cr. Case No.
14408/2024, FIR no. 95/2023 dated 28.01.2023, P.S. Burari’.
Accordingly, the said order dated 04.04.2026 is upheld.
18. Accordingly, the present revision petition stands
disposed of in the above terms.
-- 10 of 11 --
CR No. 456/2026 ‘P’ v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ars. Page No. 11 of 11
19. Trial Court Record along with a copy of this
order/judgment be sent to the Ld. Trial Court, with directions
to proceed as per law.
20. Revision file be consigned to record room after due
compliance.
Announced in the open Court (Ankit Mehta)
on 10.10.2026. ASJ-03, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
-- 11 of 11 --