Dismissed¶34

Ashish Kalra and Others v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anothers

Delhi HC5 May 2026CRL.M.C./3454/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL.M.C. 3454/2026; Ashish Kalra v. State of NCT of Delhi; quashing of FIR No. 09/2021 PS Shahdara refused; Sections 498A/406/354/34 IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act; serious allegations of sexual misconduct by petitioner no. 2 (brother-in-law); settlement plea rejected; inherent powers; interest of justice; full dress trial vs mini trial; charge consideration 17.07.2026; Justice Girish Kathpalia; dismissed 05.05.2026.

What did the court decide?

The subject FIR contains extremely serious allegations of sexual misconduct, which ought not to be ignored. ¶25

Ashish Kalra and Others Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anothers — Dowry and Cruelty | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether FIR No. 09/2021 of PS Shahdara (offences under Sections 498A/406/354/34 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act) may be quashed under the High Court's inherent powers on the plea of settlement between the complainant de facto and the petitioners, notwithstanding serious allegations of sexual misconduct against petitioner no. 2.

¶18

Court's answer

The subject FIR contains extremely serious allegations of sexual misconduct, which ought not to be ignored.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

The charges are not of mere matrimonial or civil wrong; they are heinous allegations of a lady against her brother-in-law (petitioner no. 2).

¶32

Key takeaways

The expression 'interest of justice' does not mean simply disposing of a matter to suit the convenience of the litigants or to lessen the burden on dockets; the High Court while exercising inherent powers cannot be expected to look the other way and allow such serious charges to go unpunished.ratio¶27
Whether the charges are truthful or not is for the trial court to decide after conducting a full dress trial; this Court shall not conduct a mini trial to ascertain their truthfulness.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Girish Kathpalia, J., oral judgment dated 05.05.2026) dismissed CRL.M.C. 3454/2026 whereby Ashish Kalra and others sought quashing of FIR No. 09/2021 of PS Shahdara (offences under Sections 498A/406/354/34 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act) on the ground that the complainant de facto (respondent no. 2) had settled all matrimonial disputes. The learned APP highlighted serious allegations of sexual misconduct in the 18-page FIR against petitioner no. 2, the complainant's brother-in-law (including an incident of 24.05.2020), which the complainant, present in the courtroom, affirmed. Held: these are extremely serious, heinous allegations, not charges of mere matrimonial or civil wrong; 'interest of justice' does not mean disposal to suit litigants' convenience or to lessen docket burden, and the High Court in exercise of inherent powers cannot allow such serious charges to go unpunished; truthfulness of the charges is for the trial court after a full dress trial (consideration of charge listed for 17.07.2026), this Court conducting no mini trial; each such complaint must be tested on its merits, and if the allegations are found false after trial the complainant de facto herself should face prosecution; inherent powers cannot be invoked to dump such heinous allegations under the carpet. Quashing refused; petition and accompanying application (CRL.M.A. 14026/2026) dismissed.

¶1

$~72

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 05.05.2026

¶4

- CRL.M.C. 3454/2026 & CRL.M.A. 14026/2026

¶5

ASHISH KALRA AND OTHERS .....Petitioners

¶6

Through: Mr. Vardan Kharbanda, Advocate

¶7

versus

¶8

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER .....Respondents

¶9

Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for State with W/SI Pista Sharma Mr. Nikhil, Mr. Piyush Dixit and Mr. Dheeraj Singh, Advocates for R2 with complainant de facto in person

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

¶11

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

¶12

Petitioners seek quashing of case FIR No. 09/2021 of PS Shahdara for offence under Section 498A/406/354/34 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on the ground that the complainant de facto ( respondent no.2 herein ) has settled all matrimonial disputes with the petitioners.

¶13

CRL.M.C. 3454/2026 Page 1 of 4 pages

¶14

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Da te:0 5.05.2026 17:10:37

¶15

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec GIRISH 45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1 KATHPALIA 5570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff80 1e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.05.05 05:03:16 -07'00'

¶16

At the outset, learned APP for State has referred to certain serious allegations of sexual misconduct levelled in the subject FIR against the present petitioner no. 2 ( brother-in-law of complainant de facto ). It is contended that in view of such serious allegations of sexual misconduct, the FIR cannot be quashed on the pretext of settlement between the parties. Further, it is submitted by learned APP for State that the trial is already listed for consideration of charge on 17.07.2026.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for petitioners. It is contended on behalf of petitioners that according to the settled legal position, the High Court can exercise inherent powers to quash the FIR where the offence alleged is matrimonial wrong or a civil wrong and the court is of the view that ends of justice call for quashing the FIR.

¶18

There is no dispute about the above mentioned legal proposition. But what is to be examined is as to whether the subject FIR bears allegations of only matrimonial/civil dispute and if so, whether it would be in the interest of justice to quash the subject FIR.

¶19

The subject FIR runs into as many as 18 pages. One of the allegations of sexual misconduct is that on 24.05.2020, when the complainant de facto just came out of her bathroom, she saw the present petitioner no. 2 laying on her bed, due to which she felt shocked and nervous, and asked him to immediately leave her room, but he started playing a porn movie on his mobile phone with high volume and even forced her for sexual favours; that

¶20

CRL.M.C. 3454/2026 Page 2 of 4 pages

¶21

GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.05.05 05:03:05 -07'00'

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Da te:0 5.05.2026 17:10:37

¶24

despite being repeatedly told to stop the porn video and leave the room, the present petitioner no. 2 did not listen and passed certain obnoxious remarks ( recorded verbatim in the FIR ); that the present petitioner no. 2 further threatened to circulate her video while she was taking a bath, if she objected to his advances; that thereafter, he caught hold of her hand and pulled her, but somehow she rescued herself and started shouting, so the remaining petitioners entered her room; and that when she narrated the entire incident, the remaining petitioners threatened her not to disclose the incident to anyone, otherwise she would be killed.

¶25

I am of the considered view that these are extremely serious allegations, which ought not to be ignored.

¶26

In view of the submission of petitioners that no such incident took place, the complainant de facto , present in the courtroom, affirmed the incident.

¶27

The expression “interest of justice” does not mean simply disposing of a matter to suit the convenience of the litigants and also to lessen the burden on dockets by one case. The High Court while exercising inherent powers cannot be expected to look the other way and allow such serious charges to go unpunished. Of course, whether these charges are truthful or not, is for the trial court to decide after conducting a full dress trial and this Court shall not conduct a mini trial in order to ascertain the truthfulness of the charges. To say the least, these are not the charges of mere matrimonial

CRL.M.C. 3454/2026

Page 3 of 4 pages

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Da te:0 5.05.2026 17:10:37

¶32

or civil wrong. These are heinous allegations of a lady against her brotherin-law.

¶33

I am not oblivious that in the recent past, the complaints lodged for offences under Section 498A/406 IPC also contain such serious allegations of sexual misconduct. But that does not mean that the Court can take a general view that such allegations are always false and levelled only to ensure that the accused does not get released on bail. Each such case must be tested on its merits, otherwise, even the genuine victims would suffer. On the other hand, if after trial, such allegations are found to be false, it is the complainant de facto , who should face prosecution. Either way, inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked to dump such serious and heinous allegations under the carpet.

¶34

In view of the aforesaid, I find it not in the interest of justice to quash the subject FIR. Therefore, the petition and the accompanying application are dismissed.

¶35

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4af GIRISH ec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cac ca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, KATHPALIA serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965f f801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.05.05 05:02:40 -07'00'

¶36

GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE)

MAY 05, 2026/ as

CRL.M.C. 3454/2026

Page 4 of 4 pages

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL YADAV Signing Da te:0 5.05.2026 17:10:37

Ashish Kalra and Others v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anothers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Kalra and Others v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anothers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suraj Shat Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Aman & Anr. Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Dolly Vs State NCT of Delhi

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Ankit Dagar Vs the State NCT of Delhi

Prachi Agrawal Vs State (Nct of Delhi)