The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed an FIR registered by a wife against her husband, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law alleging that her two children were taken away on the pretext of a religious ceremony and subsequently taken to Italy, holding that the essential ingredients of cheating and criminal breach of trust cannot be made out merely because custody of children was allegedly obtained through deception.

Justice Manisha Batra noted, "The allegation, therefore, may give rise to a dispute regarding custody or the manner in which the children were taken away, but it does not disclose the ingredients of cheating punishable under Section 420 IPC. The mere use of the words "cheated" or "dishonestly induced" in the allegations cannot make out an offence under Section 420 IPC when the necessary ingredients of that provision are otherwise absent."

The FIR was registered in November 2016 on a complaint by Sita Rani (respondent No.2) against her husband Gurjit Singh (an Italy-based NRI), her mother-in-law Harjinder Kaur, her sister-in-law Inderjeet Kaur, and Inderjeet Kaur's husband Jarnail Singh.

The complainant alleged that on the pretext of a Paath (religious ceremony) at Inderjeet Kaur's house, her mother-in-law took the two children away in a car along with one Pardeep Kumar; when contacted the next day, Inderjeet Kaur denied knowledge of the children's whereabouts, and the phones of the mother-in-law and children were switched off. The complainant alleged the family had conspired to abduct the children without her consent and take them to Italy, and that Inderjeet Kaur had threatened to kill her whenever contacted.

The FIR was initially registered under Sections 365 and 506 IPC; Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC were added during investigation, while Section 365 IPC was ultimately deleted and Pardeep Kumar found innocent. A challan and charges under Sections 420 and 506 IPC were framed only against Inderjeet Kaur in July 2017; Gurjit Singh, Harjinder Kaur and Jarnail Singh, all residing in Italy — were neither arrested nor charge-sheeted, with the State reserving the right to file a supplementary challan after their arrest.

Counsel for the petitioners argued that even taken at face value, the FIR did not disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged; that the foundational allegation of abduction (Section 365 IPC) already stood deleted; that Sections 406 and 420 IPC required entrustment or dishonest inducement to deliver property, which was wholly absent since the allegation concerned only custody of children; that Inderjeet Kaur had no connection with the matrimonial dispute; that the complainant had herself executed an affidavit consenting to the children being taken to Italy for education; and that the petitioners in the connected petition had not even been charge-sheeted.

The State and the complainant's counsel opposed quashing, arguing that the FIR was registered after obtaining Deputy District Attorney's opinion, that investigation had revealed material justifying the added sections, that the affidavit did not amount to consent for the manner in which the children were taken, and that disputed questions of fact could not be examined under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

After hearing the submissions, the Court examined each offence, the Court held:

Section 406 IPC: Requires entrustment of property followed by dishonest misappropriation. Since there was no allegation that any property was entrusted to the petitioners, the Court held: "Custody of children, however serious the dispute may be, cannot by itself constitute entrustment of property so as to attract Section 406 IPC."

Section 420 IPC: Requires dishonest or fraudulent inducement to deliver property or a valuable security. Even accepting that Inderjeet Kaur induced the complainant to send the children under the pretext of a Paath, the Court held that "what is alleged to have been obtained by deception is the temporary custody of the children," which does not satisfy the requirement of delivery of property, and that "mere use of the words 'cheated' or 'dishonestly induced'... cannot make out an offence under Section 420 IPC when the necessary ingredients of that provision are otherwise absent." The Court held this reasoning applied even though a charge under Section 420 IPC had already been framed against Inderjeet Kaur, since framing of charge does not preclude quashing where basic ingredients are absent on a plain reading.

Section 120-B IPC: The Court found the conspiracy allegation was "essentially a conclusion drawn by the complainant" from the fact that the children left with the mother-in-law and were not returned, with no specific material showing any meeting of minds — and held that conspiracy cannot survive once the substantive offences themselves are not made out.

Section 506 IPC: The allegation of being threatened with death was found "completely general in nature," lacking particulars of date, time, occasion or the actual words used, and therefore insufficient to sustain a charge of criminal intimidation.

The Court declined to adjudicate the disputed question of whether the complainant's affidavit consenting to the children's relocation was voluntary, holding that even setting that dispute aside entirely, the FIR's own allegations failed to disclose the ingredients of the offences charged. It also held that the pendency of investigation against the Italy-based petitioners could not, by itself, justify continuation of proceedings against them when the underlying allegations did not disclose any offence.

Allowing both connected petitions, the Court quashed FIR No.279 dated 25.11.2016 and all consequential proceedings, including the charge-sheet and framed charges — qua all the petitioners, holding that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law, the dispute being essentially one concerning custody of children rather than any offence under Sections 406, 420, 120-B or 506 IPC.

Case Title: Inderjit Kaur v. State of Haryana and another; Gurjit Singh and others v. State of Haryana and another

Click here to read order