Child Custody Cannot Be Treated as “Property” to Prosecute Relatives for Cheating or Criminal Breach of Trust: Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes FIR
Case Name: Inderjit Kaur v. State of Haryana and Another
Date of Judgment: 7 September 2026
Citation: CRM-M-43896-2017
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that obtaining custody of children, even allegedly through deception, does not amount to delivery or entrustment of “property” for attracting the offences of cheating or criminal breach of trust under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. Section 406 IPC requires entrustment of property or dominion over property followed by its dishonest misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal. Likewise, Section 420 IPC requires dishonest or fraudulent inducement resulting in the delivery of property or valuable security. The temporary custody of children cannot be equated with property for satisfying these statutory ingredients. A general allegation that the accused acted “in conspiracy”, without material indicating an agreement or meeting of minds to commit an unlawful act, cannot sustain an offence under Section 120-B IPC. Similarly, an unspecified allegation that the complainant was threatened with death, without mentioning the date, occasion, words used or circumstances demonstrating intentional alarm, is insufficient to constitute criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC. Where the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged, continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to an abuse of process warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Summary: The proceedings arose from an FIR lodged by Sita Rani against her husband Gurjit Singh, mother-in-law Harjinder Kaur, sister-in-law Inderjit Kaur, Jarnail Singh and others. The complainant alleged that her husband, who was residing in Italy, had represented that he would take her and their two children to Italy. According to the complaint, her mother-in-law subsequently asked her to send the children for a religious ceremony at Inderjit Kaur’s house. The complainant accordingly sent the children with her mother-in-law and another person. When she later enquired about them, she was allegedly given evasive responses, following which the mobile phones of her mother-in-law and the children were switched off. She alleged that the accused had conspired to abduct the children and that Inderjit Kaur had also threatened to kill her.
The FIR was initially registered under Sections 365 and 506 IPC. During the investigation, Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC were added. The offence under Section 365 IPC was, however, subsequently deleted, and one of the accused was found innocent. A challan was presented against Inderjit Kaur, following which charges under Sections 420 and 506 IPC were framed against her. No challan had been filed and no charges had been framed against Gurjit Singh, Harjinder Kaur and Jarnail Singh, who were stated to be residing in Italy.
The petitioners approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR and the consequential proceedings. They argued that the dispute essentially concerned the custody of the children and that no property had been entrusted, misappropriated or delivered pursuant to dishonest inducement. They also relied upon an affidavit allegedly executed by the complainant recording that she had no objection to her husband taking the children to Italy for their education. The complainant disputed the nature and effect of that affidavit and maintained that the children had been taken away pursuant to a conspiracy.
The High Court examined the case within the parameters laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and reiterated that criminal proceedings may be quashed where the allegations, taken at face value, fail to constitute the offences alleged. It observed that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly, but the Court should not hesitate to intervene when the essential ingredients of an offence are demonstrably absent and the prosecution would operate merely as an instrument of harassment.
With regard to Section 406 IPC, the Court found no allegation that any property belonging to the complainant had been entrusted to the petitioners and subsequently misappropriated or converted. The allegations related exclusively to obtaining custody of the children. The Court unequivocally held that custody of children, regardless of the seriousness of the underlying matrimonial or custodial dispute, cannot constitute entrustment of property for the purpose of criminal breach of trust.
The charge under Section 420 IPC against Inderjit Kaur was founded on the allegation that the complainant had been induced to send the children on the pretext of attending a religious ceremony. The Court held that, even if this allegation were accepted as correct, the deception allegedly resulted only in obtaining temporary custody of the children and not in the delivery of property or valuable security as contemplated under Section 420 IPC. Merely describing the conduct as “cheating” or “dishonest inducement” could not compensate for the absence of the indispensable statutory ingredients.
The allegation of criminal conspiracy was also found to be a general conclusion unsupported by any specific material demonstrating an agreement or meeting of minds between the petitioners. The Court further reasoned that when the substantive offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC were themselves not disclosed, the allegation under Section 120-B IPC could not survive solely because the complainant had used the expression “in conspiracy”.
As regards Section 506 IPC, the Court found the allegation of a death threat vague and devoid of particulars. The FIR did not disclose the date, time, occasion or actual words of the alleged threat, nor did it indicate that the complainant had been intentionally alarmed or compelled to do or omit any act. Such a general assertion was held insufficient to sustain prosecution for criminal intimidation.
The Court clarified that it was unnecessary to determine whether the complainant had voluntarily consented to the children being taken to Italy or whether the affidavit relied upon by the petitioners was genuine. Even after leaving these disputed questions untouched and accepting the FIR allegations at face value, the offences invoked against the petitioners were not constituted. The fact that charges had already been framed against Inderjit Kaur did not prevent the High Court from exercising its inherent jurisdiction because the charge under Section 420 IPC rested upon the legally untenable assumption that obtaining custody of children amounted to obtaining property.
Decision: Both petitions were allowed. FIR No.279 dated 25 November 2016, registered at Police Station Parao, Ambala Cantt. under Sections 365, 406, 420 and 120-B IPC, together with the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the charge-sheet dated 12 July 2017 under Sections 420 and 506 IPC and all consequential proceedings, was quashed qua all the petitioners. The Court concluded that the dispute essentially related to the custody and removal of the children to Italy and that continuation of criminal prosecution, despite the absence of the essential ingredients of the alleged offences, would amount to an abuse of the process of law.