False 354 IPC Case Against Husband’s Elder Brother | “7-Year Delay & Missing Allegation In Earlier Statements”: Karkardooma Court In Delhi Discharges Him

NEW DELHI: A Delhi court has discharged a man, the elder brother of the complainant’s husband, from an offence punishable under Section 354 IPC, after finding that the prosecution material, taken as a whole, did not create grave suspicion against him.

The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, passed the order in State v. Rahul & Ors., arising from FIR No. 198/2023 of PS Harsh Vihar. Accused No. 4, mAN, filed the discharge application. Cr. Case No. 6222-2025

The complainant had married accused No. 1, Rahul Kumar, on 10 May 2018. She later approached the CAW Cell in January 2022 alleging dowry and cruelty. Police subsequently registered FIR No. 198/2023 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Against the applicant, the allegation concerned an incident dated 17 June 2018. The complainant alleged that when she refused his demand for non-vegetarian food, he apologised and then, on the pretext of making her quiet, touched her inappropriately and placed his hand on her private part with bad intention. She further alleged that he would enter her room without reason and try to touch her whenever he got an opportunity.

Read Also:- Wife Names NRI Brother-in-Law and Sister-in-Law In 498A Case Over Alleged Acts In USA: Andhra Pradesh HC Quashes Case, Cites Lack Of S.188 CrPC Sanction

The applicant argued that he had been falsely implicated because of matrimonial discord between the complainant and his younger brother. He relied upon his Northern Railway employment and duty record, contending that he was posted as a Gateman at Level Crossing Gate No. A-68 near Tanda Umar railway station in Punjab, around 450 km from the alleged place of occurrence.

The court also examined the timing of the allegation. The alleged incident was of 17 June 2018, but the allegation surfaced for the first time in the CAW Cell complaint filed in January 2022, around four years later.

Significantly, the court noted that FIR Nos. 363/2020 and 364/2020 had been registered in April 2020 following an incident involving the complainant’s brother, and the present applicant had been specifically named as an accused in that litigation. Yet, no allegation of sexual misconduct relating to the alleged 2018 incident was raised against him at that stage.

The court further found that the complainant’s supplementary statement under Section 180 BNSS was silent about any sexual misconduct by the applicant on 17 June 2018. Her subsequent statement under Section 183 BNSS also did not identify the applicant by name in relation to the alleged touching.

Read Also:- Success Story – Brother-in-Law Discharged of IPC354 in Revision Petition

The court noted another important circumstance: the applicant was specifically named only in 2025, when the complainant answered a question in a notice under Section 94 BNSS—more than seven years after the alleged incident.

The court also examined the statements of the complainant’s parents. The court found their accounts to be derivative, as they did not claim to be eyewitnesses to the alleged incident.

The court also considered the applicant’s official railway record. According to the order, the record showed that he was working as a gatekeeper at Level Crossing A-68 under SSE/P.Way/MEX throughout 2018, and the attendance record marked him present on 16 and 18 June 2018 and “R” (rest) on 17 June 2018. The prosecution did not dispute the genuineness of these official records.

The court clarified that this record did not conclusively establish an alibi merely because 17 June was shown as a rest day. However, it remained relevant while assessing the overall prosecution material at the stage of charge.

Read Also:- False POCSO Case Against Father | Wife Filed It 5 Days After Custody Plea Was Rejected: Karnataka HC Calls It “Afterthought” & Quashes Proceedings

The court observed that matrimonial cases require caution where relatives of the husband are implicated through general or omnibus allegations. At the same time, allegations of sexual offences cannot be brushed aside merely because they arise from matrimonial disputes and must be examined sensitively.

After considering the material cumulatively, the court found a solitary allegation raised about four years after the alleged event, absence of that allegation in the 2020 litigation, omission of the applicant’s name from subsequent statements, his identification only in 2025, and an undisputed official record showing that he was serving in Punjab around the relevant period.

The court concluded that putting the applicant through trial on this material would serve no useful purpose and held that the charge under Section 354 IPC was groundless within the meaning of Section 262 BNSS.

Accordingly, The applicant was discharged from the Section 354 IPC offence. His bail bond was cancelled and the surety discharged. The court expressly clarified that its observations were confined to his discharge application and should not be treated as an opinion on the merits of the proceedings against the remaining accused.

EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTION

CASE DETAILS

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Four Years Later, Allegation Surfaces: The alleged 2018 incident was first raised in 2022, making the delay significant.
• Earlier Litigation Was Silent: Despite litigation in 2020, no allegation of the alleged 2018 sexual misconduct was raised against him.
• Crucial Statements Had Omissions: The court noted that her statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS did not sufficiently connect him with the alleged act.
• Evidence Cannot Be Ignored: His official Railway record showed his posting in Punjab around the relevant period.
• Being Husband’s Brother Is Not Enough: Finding no grave suspicion, the court discharged him. A man cannot be dragged into trial merely because the accusation against him is serious.