This criminal revision petition was filed under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), challenging an order dated 25.02.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi. The trial court had framed charges against the petitioners under Sections 498-A, 304-B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in connection with FIR No. 319/2013 registered at Police Station Bhalswa Dairy. The deceased had married the petitioners’ son on 24.04.2012 and was unfortunately found hanging at her matrimonial home on 23.10.2013, within seven years of her marriage. During the pendency of the petition, petitioner no. 1 (father-in-law) passed away, causing the petition to abate as against him, thus restricting the adjudication solely to petitioner no. 2 (the mother-in-law). The High Court of Delhi dismissed the revision petition, holding that the initial statement and subsequent supplementary statements disclosed sufficient prima facie material to warrant the framing of charges, and that evaluating the truthfulness or omissions in statements is a matter for trial rather than the stage of framing charges.
- Scope at the Stage of Framing Charges: The High Court reiterated that while considering whether to frame charges, courts are not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence, a mini-trial, or a roving inquiry into the merits. The sole objective is to determine whether the material on record discloses the essential ingredients of the alleged offenses.
- Presence of Initial Allegations: Addressing the petitioner’s argument that supplementary statements were mere improvements, the Court noted that the very first statement given by the mother of the deceased to the SDM contained specific allegations concerning the demand for bronze utensils instead of steel ones by the husband’s parents.
- Validity of Supplementary Chargesheets: Relying on the Supreme Court precedent in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali @ Deepak, (2013) 5 SCC 762, the High Court affirmed that a supplementary report functions as a continuation of the primary investigation. Consequently, subsequent statements providing further particulars regarding harassment and dowry demands cannot be ignored or discarded prematurely at the charge stage.
- Questions of Fact for Trial: The Court observed that whether subsequent statements constitute material improvements or are truthful are matters that must be tested through the examination and cross-examination of witnesses during the trial, rather than pre-emptively decided during a revision petition against the framing of charges.
2026 DHC 6741
Sukh Chand & Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi (D.O.J. 17.08.2026)




