Back
: Deception in Taking Children Not ,
The has ruled that taking custody of children through deception does not amount to or under the . Justice Manisha Batra quashed an FIR registered in 2016, holding that the foundational allegations—centered on a family dispute over children—failed to disclose the essential ingredients of Sections 406, 420, 120-B, or 506 IPC. The decision underscores the limits of criminal law in matrimonial custody battles.
When a Religious Ceremony Became a Legal Flashpoint
The dispute arose from the matrimonial relationship between Sita Rani (respondent No.2) and her husband Gurjit Singh, an Italy-based NRI. The couple had two children, Saravjeet Singh and Prabhjot Kaur. Sita Rani lived with her children and mother-in-law Harjinder Kaur at the matrimonial home, while Gurjit Singh visited India periodically.
On , Sita Rani alleged that her mother-in-law told her there was a Paath (religious ceremony) at the house of her sister-in-law, Inderjeet Kaur. She sent her children with Harjinder Kaur and a family acquaintance, Pardeep Kumar, in a car. The next day, when she called Inderjeet Kaur, she was told that the children were with Harjinder Kaur. Soon, the phones of Harjinder Kaur and the children were switched off. Sita Rani alleged that the family had conspired to abduct her children and take them to Italy, and that Inderjeet Kaur threatened to kill her whenever contacted.
On this complaint, FIR No.279 dated , was registered at , under Sections 365 (kidnapping or abduction to confine), 406 (), 420 (), 120-B (), and 506 () IPC.
Investigation and Charges
During investigation, was deleted, and Pardeep Kumar was found innocent. A under Sections 420 and 506 IPC was filed only against Inderjeet Kaur in . The other accused—Gurjit Singh, Harjinder Kaur, and Jarnail Singh (Inderjeet Kaur’s husband and Gurjit Singh’s sister’s husband)—resided in Italy and were not arrested. The State stated that a would be presented after their arrest.
Inderjeet Kaur filed CRM-M-43896-2017 seeking of the FIR, while Gurjit Singh and the others filed CRM-M-25473-2021 for identical relief. The two petitions were heard together.
Petitioners’ Case: No Offence Made Out
Counsel for the petitioners argued that the FIR, even taken at face value, did not disclose any offence. The principal allegation of abduction (Section 365) had already been dropped. They contended that Sections 406 and 420 IPC require or to deliver property—neither of which was present, as the dispute concerned custody of children, not property. They also submitted that Sita Rani had previously executed an affidavit consenting to Gurjit Singh taking the children to Italy for education, undermining the claim of deception. Since the other petitioners had not even been charge-sheeted, continuing proceedings against them would be an abuse of process.
State and Complainant’s Stand: Conspiracy and Threat
The State and the complainant’s counsel opposed the , arguing that the FIR was registered after legal scrutiny and that investigation revealed a conspiracy to take the children away. They asserted that the affidavit did not consent to the manner in which the children were taken—under the pretext of a religious ceremony—and that Inderjeet Kaur’s threats to kill Sita Rani constituted . Disputed questions of fact, they argued, could not be examined under
Court’s Legal Analysis: Applying Bhajan Lal Guidelines
Justice Manisha Batra began by recounting the well-settled principles for FIRs under , drawing on the landmark decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335). The court noted that its can be exercised where allegations, even if accepted in full, do not constitute any offence. Relying also on Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 11 SCC 673 and Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 18 SCC 191, the court observed that where the basic ingredients of an offence are absent, continuing proceedings serves no purpose.
Examining each charge, the court found:
(): The offence requires followed by . The allegation concerned only custody of children. The court held, “Custody of children, however serious the dispute may be, cannot by itself constitute so as to attract .”
(): requires to deliver property or a valuable security. The allegation that Inderjeet Kaur induced Sita Rani to send the children under the pretext of a Paath only related to . The court ruled, “What is alleged to have been obtained by deception is the of the children… mere use of the words 'cheated' or 'dishonestly induced' in the allegations cannot make out an offence under when the necessary ingredients of that provision are otherwise absent.” The court clarified that framing of a charge against Inderjeet Kaur did not preclude when the allegations, on plain reading, failed to disclose the offence.
(): The conspiracy allegation was a bare conclusion drawn from the children’s disappearance. There was no specific material showing a . Since the substantive offences were not made out, the conspiracy charge could not survive.
(): The threat allegation was “completely general in nature,” lacking particulars of date, time, occasion, or the actual words used. Without such details, the essential ingredient of intentional alarm was absent.
Key Observations
“Custody of children, however serious the dispute may be, cannot by itself constitute so as to attract .”
“What is alleged to have been obtained by deception is the of the children. 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 punishable under .”
“The mere use of the words 'cheated' or 'dishonestly induced' in the allegations cannot make out an offence under when the necessary ingredients of that provision are otherwise absent.”
“There has to be some material showing the for doing an unlawful act or for doing a lawful act by unlawful means. Such material is not apparent from the allegations in the FIR.”
Final Verdict: FIR Quashed Qua All Petitioners
Allowing both petitions, Justice Manisha Batra quashed FIR No.279 dated , and all consequential proceedings—including the and framed charges—against all petitioners: Inderjeet Kaur, Gurjit Singh, Harjinder Kaur, and Jarnail Singh. The court held that continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law, as the dispute essentially concerned child custody rather than the alleged criminal offences.
The judgment reinforces that criminal law cannot be used as a tool to settle matrimonial custody disputes where the allegations fail to meet the strict legal requirements of or . It also confirms the High Court’s power to intervene at the pre-trial stage when the FIR, on its face, does not disclose a .
Case Title: Coram: Justice Manisha Batra Order Date:
