Read Judgement copy : X v. STATE & ORS
Case Name: X v. State & Ors
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 2222/212 & CRML.M.A. 7884/2012
Date: Thursday, First of October, Two Thousand and Twenty- Six
Court: High Court of Delhi
Quorum: Justice Madhu Jain
FACTS
The Petitioner was married to Respondent No. 2 in February 2003 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. She alleged that soon after marriage, her husband and his family members harassed her for insufficient dowry and demanded ₹5,00,000 and a Maruti Esteem car. She alleged that she was subjected to physical and verbal abuse and was forced to hand over her earnings to her husband. The petitioner conceived in November 2003, whereafter, she alleged that respondents did not arrange adequate medical treatment when she developed complications. It was further alleged that her husband declined to consent to the advised medical procedures. She suffered a miscarriage in February 2004.
She was allegedly turned out of the matrimonial home in May 2004 and her jewellery, cash, FDs, household articles and clothes were not returned. Respondent No. 2 filed for divorce on 19.08.2004, and the petition was subsequently dismissed. The Petitioner submitted a complaint dated 08.09.2004 to the Crime Against Women Cell (CAW) and an FIR was registered under Section 498-A and 406 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.
The Trial Court directed framing of charges against Respondents Nos. 2–6 under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. In revision, the Additional Sessions Judge allowed:
| Party/ Parties | Result |
| Respondent No. 2 (Husband) | Discharged u/s 406 IPC. Not Discharged u/s 498-A IPC |
| Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 (In-laws) | Discharged u/s 498-A and 406 IPC. |
The Petitioner challenged this order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. During the pendency, Respondent No. 2 was acquitted under Section 498-A and proceedings against Respondent No. 3 were abated following his death.
LEGAL ISSUES
- Whether the Revisional Court transgressed the permissible limits of scrutiny at the stage of charge.
- Whether any error warranting the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by this Court is disclosed.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950- Confers supervisory jurisdiction upon the High Courts over subordinate courts and tribunals.
- Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860- Establishes individual criminal liability when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of a shared common intention.
- Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860- Stipulates the punishment for criminal breach of trust which includes imprisonment up to 3 years, fine or both.
- Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860- Penalises cruelty by husband or his relatives including wilful conduct that drives a woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury and harassment to coerce an unlawful demand for property.
ARGUMENTS
PETITIONER- The Petitioner argued that the Revisional Court had exceeded the permissible scope of scrutiny at the stage of framing of charge by assessing the credibility and sufficiency of the prosecution material in detail. They contended that allegations, when taken at face value, warranted framing of charges and their truth was a matter for trial. Regarding Section 406, IPC, they argued that the complaint specifically identified the articles held by different members of the matrimonial family which were entrusted to them and were not returned despite several demands. With respect to Section 498-A, it was contended that there were repeated demands for ₹5,00,000 and a car with threats of expulsion.
RESPONDENTS- The Respondents argued that the Revisional Court rightly examined the complaint, the CAW Cell inquiry and the medical report. They contended that allegations against the relatives were general and repetitive and that there was insufficient material to proceed against them. Regarding Section 406, IPC, they argued that the complaint did not specify the particulars showing when, how and to whom the property had been entrusted or how it had been dishonestly misappropriated. They relied on Neelu Chopra v. Bharti (2009) 10 SCC 184, Geddam Jhansi v. State of Telangana 2025 SCC OnLine SC 263, and Digambar v. State of Maharashtra 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3836 to contend that specific allegations and prima facie material were required against each accused.
ANALYSIS
The Court, relying on Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel (2022) 4 SCC 181 and Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460, held that supervisory jurisdiction is corrective and does not confer the right of appeal on facts. It was reiterated that the charge-stage inquiry is to determine whether the prosecution material establishes a prima facie case or not, through reliance on Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979) 3 SCC 4 and Onkar Nath Mishra v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2008) 2 SCC 561.
For Section 498-A IPC, citing Neelu Chopra and Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599, the Court distinguished between allegations attributable to an accused and collective allegations against the matrimonial family. It was found that demands and abuse were alleged collectively, while the payment and the assaults were attributed principally to the husband. The former becomes unsustainable.
The Court held that Section 406, IPC, requires both entrustment of property and dishonest misappropriation to be disclosed against each accused. It was reaffirmed that possession in a shared household is not enough; hence, the complaint which did not specify which article was delivered to which relative was found to be lacking. Section 34 , IPC (Corresponds to Section 3(5) of the BNS, 2023) cannot supply the missing ingredients.
JUDGEMENT
The Delhi High Court held that the discharge of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 under Section 498-A IPC, and of all the accused under Section 406 IPC, did not disclose patent illegality, perversity or material irregularity warranting interference under Article 227. Therefore, the petition was dismissed and the pending application was also disposed of.
CONCLUSION
The Court reaffirmed that Article 227 confers limited supervisory jurisdiction and allegations under Sections 498-A (Corresponds to Section 85 of the BNS, 2023) and 406 (Corresponds to Section 316 of the BNS, 2023) IPC must disclose sufficient material against each accused.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY- T. R. AISIRI RAO
