$~44

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: December 16^th, 2025

+ CRL.REV.P. 187/2023 & CRL.M.A. 4674/2023

RAHUL KUMAR AND ANR. .....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Ashish Mundhare,

Advocate.

versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam,

APP for the State with SI

Udit, PS Ranhola.

Mr. Binod K. Aggarwal, Advocate for complainant

(through VC).

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under section 397of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (‘CrPC’) assailing of the order dated 10.11.2022 (‘impugned order’), passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (‘ASJ’), whereby charges for the offences under sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), have been framed against the Petitioners

herein and accused Vipin@Chuha.

2. The Petitioner No. 1/ Sh. Rahul and Petitioner No. 2/Smt. Mithlesh are the brother-in-law and sister, respectively, of the

husband of the deceased/victim namely Vipin @Chuha.

3. Succinctly stated, the FIR no. 102/2020 dated 13.02.2020

was registered at Police Station Ranhola, at the behest of the father of the victim alleging that the deceased/victim-Smt. Jyoti was married to the accused/Vipin on 29.04.2018 and in their marriage the father had given his daughter gold ornaments, cash, kitchen appliances and furniture as dowry articles. It is alleged that after one month of their marriage, the family members of the accused started quarrelling with her and due to the same, the accused and the victim shifted to a rented accommodation. It is further alleged that the husband/Vipin was a habitual drinker, never had a fixed source of employment and used to harass his daughter. Allegedly, the Petitioners and Vipin, started pressurizing her to repay some loan they had taken. It is further alleged that the father of the victim had given money i.e. Rs. 16,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- in cash, to Vipin on two occasions. He further alleged that a night before, around 9 pm the victim came to her father’s house, took keys of her house and left. At around 1:30 am, the brother of the victim received a call from the victim’s landlord and after reaching the rented accommodation, the victim was found hanging from the ceiling fan with green coloured chunni, the door was bolted from inside and the window had to be broken to unlock the door. It is further alleged by the father that he has suspicion upon his son-in-law.

4. Thereafter statement of family members of deceased i.e. father/Shri Kishan, mother/Laxmi Devi and brother/Shiv Kumar were recorded.

5. The chargesheet in the present case was filed on 09.10.2020, in which Vipin was chargesheeted under section

304B/498A/34 of the IPC, while the Petitioners were chargesheeted without arrest under Section 498A/34 of the IPC.

6. Vide the impugned order, the learned ASJ framed charges against the Petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the IPC, observing that a prima facie case was made out against the accused persons.

7. Aggrieved the present petition has been filed, assailing the above-mentioned order.

8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order on charge is liable to be set aside as the complaint, lodged by the father of the deceased, is bereft of any specific allegations of “dowry demand” by the Petitioners and only makes a casual reference to the Petitioners regarding repayment of a loan. Such allegations cannot qualify as “dowry demand” in any case.

9. He further submits that the Petitioners were never part of matrimonial home of the deceased and her husband, since their home was around 7 km away from their home. Despite these facts and circumstances, charges against the Petitioners have been framed, which are assailed herein.

10. Per Contra, the learned Counsels for the Respondents have vehemently opposed the petition and submit that the order is well-reasoned and merits no interference.

Analysis

11. At the outset, it will be apposite to