Justice Madhu Jain, Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has upheld the discharge of an Air India pilot and his family members in a criminal case registered by his air hostess wife alleging cruelty, dowry harassment, criminal breach of trust, and unnatural sex under Sections 498A, 406, 377, 509, and 34 IPC.

The Bench dismissed the wife’s petition under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC), holding that the concurrent findings of the Magistrate Court and the Revisional Court suffered from no perversity or jurisdictional error.

A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Madhu Jain observed, “The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS is not intended to substitute its own opinion for that of the Courts below. In the absence of any patent illegality, perversity or miscarriage of justice, interference with concurrent findings is not warranted. The petitioner essentially seeks a re-appreciation of the evidence, which is impermissible in the present proceedings”.

Advocate Swaty Singh Malik appeared for the petitioner and Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP appeared for the respondent.

The complainant (an Air Hostess) and respondent no. 2 (an Air India Pilot) were married in June 2017. Matrimonial discord arose shortly after, with the complainant alleging that her husband and in-laws demanded a Honda City car, taunted her over jewellery, and subjected her to physical, verbal, and sexual abuse. She further alleged that her husband committed non-consensual sexual acts (Section 377 IPC) and concealed his prior marriage and divorce.

After the parties separated in March 2018, the complainant lodged an FIR at PS Dwarka South under Sections 498A/406/377/509/34 IPC.

Thereafter, the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Mahila Court), Dwarka, discharged all accused persons. On Section 406 IPC, the court noted no specific entrustment of stridhan to the husband, while the in-laws were ready to return admitted articles which the complainant refused to accept. On Section 377 IPC, the court noted an absence of medical or corroborative evidence, with the MLC conducted two years later showing no injuries.

Subsequent to which, the Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts, affirmed the discharge, finding no "grave suspicion" to frame charges. The wife subsequently approached the High Court challenging both orders.

The High Court affirmed the lower courts' rulings across all key legal points:

  1. Section 377 IPC (Unnatural Offences): The Court noted that except for the bare allegations of the complainant, there was no contemporaneous medical or supporting evidence collected during investigation. The MLC conducted two years post-incident recorded no external injuries, making the charge unsustainable at the stage of framing charges.
  2. Section 406 IPC (Criminal Breach of Trust): The Court agreed that there were no clear allegations establishing dishonest misappropriation of stridhan. Furthermore, the husband and in-laws had expressed willingness to return the admitted articles, which the complainant declined to receive.
  3. Sections 498A, 323 & 509 IPC (Cruelty & Harassment): The Bench observed that the allegations were vague and failed to meet the essential ingredients required to create a "grave suspicion" against the accused.
  4. Scope of Section 528 BNSS / Section 482 CrPC: The Bench emphasized that the High Court’s inherent powers cannot be used to re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own opinion for that of lower courts.

Finding no merit in the petition, the Court dismissed the challenge and confirmed the discharge of the husband and his family.

Cause Title: XXXXXXXXXXX v. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:6382)

Appearances:

Petitioner: Swaty Singh Malik, Rohan Kumar, and Kaushami, Advocates.

Respondent: Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP, H.S. Bhullar, Bhawani Gupta, and Eva Verma, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Tags: