Quick Read
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed an FIR against a woman and her family members after a wife alleged that her two children were taken away on the pretext of a religious ceremony and later taken to Italy. The Court held that a dispute over the manner in which children were taken away can give rise to a custody dispute, but it does not automatically satisfy the ingredients of cheating or criminal breach of trust.
Introduction
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that allegations of obtaining custody of children through deception cannot, by themselves, constitute offences of cheating or criminal breach of trust.
Justice Manisha Batra observed that the words “cheated” or “dishonestly induced” in a complaint are insufficient to constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC when the basic ingredients of the offence are absent.
The Court was dealing with petitions seeking quashing of an FIR registered after a woman alleged that her two children were taken away on the pretext of a Paath and subsequently taken to Italy.
Legal Issue
The FIR was registered in November 2016 against the woman’s husband Gurjit Singh, mother-in-law Harjinder Kaur, sister-in-law Inderjeet Kaur and brother-in-law Jarnail Singh.
The complainant alleged that her mother-in-law took her two children in a car on the pretext of attending a religious ceremony at Inderjeet Kaur’s house. When she contacted the family the following day, she was allegedly unable to locate the children. She alleged that the family members had conspired to take the children to Italy without her consent.
The FIR was initially registered under Sections 365 and 506 IPC. During investigation, Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC were added. Section 365 was later deleted.
Charges under Sections 420 and 506 IPC were ultimately framed against Inderjeet Kaur. The other petitioners residing in Italy were neither arrested nor charge-sheeted.
The petitioners argued that even if the allegations were accepted at face value, they did not satisfy the statutory ingredients of the offences invoked.
What Did the Court Hold on Section 406 IPC?
The Court examined the allegation of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC.
For Section 406 to apply, there must first be entrustment of property and a subsequent dishonest misappropriation or conversion of that property.
The Court found that there was no allegation that any property had been entrusted to the petitioners.
The dispute concerned the custody of children. The Court therefore held that custody of children, however serious the dispute, cannot by itself constitute entrustment of property for the purpose of Section 406 IPC.
Why Was Section 420 IPC Not Made Out?
The Court also examined the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC.
Section 420 requires dishonest or fraudulent inducement leading to the delivery of property or valuable security, along with the other statutory requirements of cheating.
The Court assumed, for the purpose of examination, that Inderjeet Kaur had induced the complainant to send the children to her house under the pretext of a Paath. However, what was allegedly obtained through deception was the temporary custody of the children.
The Court held that this did not satisfy the requirement of delivery of property under Section 420 IPC.
Justice Batra therefore observed that merely using expressions such as “cheated” or “dishonestly induced” in an FIR cannot create an offence under Section 420 when its essential ingredients are otherwise absent.
The Court also clarified that the fact that a charge under Section 420 had already been framed did not prevent the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC where the basic ingredients of the offence were absent from the allegations themselves.
What About Criminal Conspiracy?
The Court also considered Section 120-B IPC, which deals with criminal conspiracy.
The complainant had alleged that the family members had conspired to take the children to Italy. However, the Court found that the allegation of conspiracy was essentially an inference drawn from the fact that the children had been taken away and were not returned.
There was no specific material demonstrating a meeting of minds between the accused persons.
The Court therefore held that the conspiracy allegation could not independently survive when the substantive offences themselves were not established.
Why Was the Section 506 Charge Also Quashed?
The Court also examined the allegation of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC.
The complainant alleged that Inderjeet Kaur had threatened to kill her. However, the Court found the allegation to be general and lacking particulars regarding the date, time, occasion or actual words used during the alleged threat.
The Court held that such a general allegation was insufficient to sustain a charge of criminal intimidation.
Final Decision
The High Court did not decide the disputed question of whether the complainant’s affidavit consenting to the children’s relocation to Italy was voluntarily executed.
Instead, the Court held that even if that dispute was completely left aside, the allegations contained in the FIR did not disclose the basic ingredients of the offences invoked.
The Court therefore allowed both connected petitions and quashed FIR No. 279 dated November 25, 2016, along with the consequential proceedings, including the charge-sheet and framed charges against the petitioners.
The Court observed that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law, as the underlying dispute was essentially related to the custody of the children rather than offences under Sections 406, 420, 120-B or 506 IPC.
Implications
The ruling highlights an important distinction between a custody dispute and a criminal offence. The manner in which a child is taken from one parent can be seriously disputed and can have consequences in family or custody proceedings. However, criminal charges cannot be sustained merely by attaching criminal terminology to the allegations.
The judgment also reinforces that courts must examine whether the essential statutory ingredients of an offence are actually present. Where the allegations, even if accepted at face value, fail to constitute the alleged offences, the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to prevent continuation of criminal proceedings.
