A Delhi Mahila Court has ordered framing of charges under Section 498A IPC while discharging all accused from Section 406 IPC due to lack of evidence. The order once again shows how criminal trials move forward even when financial allegations remain unproven.
New Delhi: In a matrimonial criminal case filed by Delhi woman, against her husband and his family members, Mahila Court, North-West District, has refused to frame criminal breach of trust and dowry charges due to lack of evidence of entrustment or misappropriation. Only cruelty charges under Section 498A will proceed, highlighting how exaggerated allegations often fail judicial scrutiny.
During the hearing, the defence argued that the allegations made by the complainant were vague and general in nature and did not disclose any specific role of each accused. It was submitted that such vague allegations are not sufficient to frame criminal charges, especially in matrimonial cases where multiple family members are routinely implicated. The defence relied upon several SC judgments titled as “Dara Laxmi Narayna Vs State of Telangana & Anr (2025)”, “Geddam Jhansi & Anr. Vs State of Telangana & Ors (2025)”, and “Kahkashan Kausar (@ Sonam) & Ors. Vs State of Bihar & Ors (2022)”.
On the other hand, the prosecution opposed the discharge plea and argued that there was sufficient material on record to frame charges under Sections 498A and 406 IPC against all accused persons, claiming that there were specific allegations regarding cruelty and dowry demands.
After examining the record, the court held that there was prima facie sufficient material to frame charges under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC. The court noted that the complainant alleged that after her pregnancy, her mother-in-law asked her to demand a share in her father’s property. It was further stated that even after delivery, money was demanded from her mother.
The complainant also claimed that in response to notice under Section 91 CrPC, she stated that her father-in-law’s sister demanded Rs. 5 lakhs from her on behalf of her father as a condition to keep her in the matrimonial home. The court observed that the complainant had given specific incidents of cruelty against her mother-in-law, husband, and father-in-law, which was sufficient at this stage to proceed under Section 498A IPC.
However, when it came to the offence under Section 406 read with Section 34 IPC, the court took a very clear and reasoned view. It held that there was nothing on record to show that the complainant had entrusted her jewellery or any other articles to the accused persons. The court further noted that there was no evidence of any specific date, month, or year when the complainant demanded the return of such articles, nor any proof that the accused refused to return them with dishonest intention.
Due to the complete absence of material showing entrustment, demand, or dishonest misappropriation, the court categorically held that no ground was made out to frame charges under Section 406 read with Section 34 IPC. Consequently, all accused persons were discharged from the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC.
The matter was adjourned for formal framing of charge and plea under Section 498A IPC, and the accused were directed to appear physically on the next date of hearing.
This order is significant because it once again highlights a recurring pattern in matrimonial litigation where Section 406 IPC is casually added without basic legal requirements being met. The court’s reasoning reinforces that criminal breach of trust cannot be presumed merely because a marriage has broken down. It also serves as a reminder that while allegations of cruelty must be examined during trial, husbands and their families cannot be forced to face criminal prosecution for dowry recovery without strict proof of entrustment and misappropriation.
Explanatory Table: Laws and Sections Involved
| Law / Section | What It Means | Court’s Finding |
| Section 498A IPC | Cruelty by husband or relatives | Prima facie case found, charge to be framed |
| Section 34 IPC | Common intention | Applied along with 498A |
| Section 406 IPC | Criminal breach of trust | Discharged due to lack of proof |
| Section 91 CrPC | Power to call documents | Relied upon for allegations |
| Section 498A/34 IPC | Cruelty with common intention | Proceeding to trial stage |
| Section 406/34 IPC | Breach of trust with common intention | All accused discharged |
Case Details
- Case Title: State vs. UM
- Case Number: 54 Cr. Case 202/2022
- FIR Details: FIR No. 340/2020, Police Station Vijay Vihar
- Court: Mahila Court-01, North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi
- Date of Order: 03 December 2025
- Nature of Order: Order on Charge
- Bench
- Presiding Judge: Ms. Aishwarya Sharma
- Designation: Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Mahila Court-01, North-West District
Parties
- Prosecution: State
- Accused: U M & Others
- Complainant: Present in person
Counsels
- For the State: Ld. Substitute APP for the State
- For the Accused: Defence Counsel (name not mentioned in the order)
- Legal Counsellor: The husband and his family were successfully counselled and legally guided by Shonee Kapoor, leading to their discharge under Section 406 IPC due to absence of proof of dowry entrustment.
Key Takeaways
- The Court itself admitted that there was zero proof of dowry or jewellery entrustment, yet the criminal case still continues against the husband and family.
- Section 498A survives purely on allegations, showing how men are forced into long trials without financial evidence.
- Section 406 IPC failed because courts still demand documents, dates, and proof when money or property is involved.
- Discharge under 406 exposes how exaggerated financial narratives collapse once judicial scrutiny begins.
- Even after partial discharge, the accused must keep appearing in court, proving that the process itself becomes punishment for men.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.