Inderjit Kaur v. State of Haryana & Another, 2026

The case arose from an FIR lodged by Sita Rani against her husband Gurjit Singh, mother-in-law Harjinder Kaur, sister-in-law Inderjit Kaur and brother-in-law Jarnail Singh.

Gurjit Singh and some of the other accused were residing in Italy.

The complainant alleged that her two children were taken away from her on the pretext of attending a Paath/religious ceremony at Inderjit Kaur's house.

According to the complaint, the complainant's mother-in-law took the children in a car along with Pardeep Kumar.

When the complainant contacted Inderjit Kaur the following day, she allegedly denied knowledge of the children's whereabouts.

The complainant alleged that the phones of the mother-in-law and the children had been switched off.

She alleged that the family members had conspired to take the children away without her consent and subsequently take them to Italy.

She further alleged that Inderjit Kaur had threatened to kill her when she attempted to contact her.

The FIR was initially registered under Sections 365 and 506 IPC.

During investigation, Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC were subsequently added.

Section 365 IPC was eventually deleted and Pardeep Kumar was found innocent during investigation.

A challan was filed and charges under Sections 420 and 506 IPC were framed only against Inderjit Kaur in July 2017.

Gurjit Singh, Harjinder Kaur and Jarnail Singh, who were residing in Italy, were neither arrested nor charge-sheeted at that stage.

The State reserved liberty to file a supplementary challan against them after their arrest.

The petitioners approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, seeking quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings.

The petitioners argued that the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, did not satisfy the legal ingredients of Sections 406 or 420 IPC.

They contended that the dispute essentially concerned custody of the children, and custody could not be treated as delivery or entrustment of property for the purposes of those offences.

The petitioners also relied upon an affidavit allegedly executed by the complainant consenting to the children being taken to Italy for education.

The complainant disputed the circumstances surrounding the affidavit and argued that it did not constitute consent to the manner in which the children were taken.

The State and complainant opposed quashing, contending that the investigation had disclosed material supporting the offences and that disputed questions of fact should not be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.

The High Court examined the allegations without deciding the disputed factual question concerning the voluntariness of the complainant's affidavit.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed both connected petitions.

The Court quashed FIR No. 279 dated 25.11.2016 and all consequential proceedings.

The Court also quashed the charge-sheet and charges framed pursuant to the FIR, insofar as they concerned the petitioners.

With respect to Section 406 IPC, the Court held that criminal breach of trust requires entrustment of property followed by dishonest misappropriation or conversion.

The Court found that there was no allegation of entrustment of property to the petitioners.

The Court held that custody of children, however serious the underlying dispute may be, cannot by itself constitute entrustment of property for the purposes of Section 406 IPC.

Regarding Section 420 IPC, the Court held that cheating requires dishonest or fraudulent inducement resulting in delivery of property or valuable security, or conduct falling within the statutory requirements.

Even if Inderjit Kaur had induced the complainant to send the children under the pretext of a religious ceremony, the thing allegedly obtained through that deception was temporary custody of the children, not delivery of property or valuable security.

The Court therefore held that the essential ingredients of Section 420 IPC were absent.

The Court clarified that merely using words such as “cheated” or “dishonestly induced” in a complaint cannot establish an offence when the substantive ingredients of Section 420 IPC are missing.

The Court held that the same reasoning applied even though a charge under Section 420 IPC had already been framed against Inderjit Kaur.

The framing of a charge does not prevent the High Court from exercising its inherent jurisdiction where the allegations themselves fail to disclose the basic ingredients of the offence.

Regarding Section 120-B IPC, the Court found that the allegation of conspiracy was essentially an inference drawn by the complainant from the fact that the children had left with the mother-in-law and were not returned.

There was no specific material establishing the necessary meeting of minds between the accused persons.

The conspiracy allegation therefore could not independently survive once the substantive offences were not made out.

Regarding Section 506 IPC, the Court found the allegation of a threat to kill to be general and vague.

The complaint did not provide sufficient particulars concerning the date, time, occasion or actual words allegedly used.

Consequently, the ingredients necessary to sustain criminal intimidation were also absent.

The Court declined to decide whether the complainant's affidavit consenting to the children's relocation was voluntary.

The Court held that even if that issue were completely disregarded, the allegations in the FIR themselves failed to disclose the offences alleged.

The pendency of investigation against the Italy-based accused could not justify continuation of criminal proceedings when the foundational allegations did not constitute the offences in question.

The Court concluded that continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

Custody dispute versus criminal offence: The central aspect of the judgment is the Court's distinction between a dispute concerning custody of children and the statutory ingredients of specific property-related offences. The Court did not treat an alleged wrongful taking of custody as automatically amounting to cheating or criminal breach of trust.

Section 406 IPC: Criminal breach of trust is fundamentally concerned with property that has been entrusted to a person. Since the complaint did not allege entrustment of property, the foundation of Section 406 was absent.

Section 420 IPC: The Court focused on the statutory requirement concerning delivery of property or valuable security. Even accepting the allegation that the complainant was deceived into allowing the children to accompany the accused, the alleged result was acquisition of custody, not delivery of property.

Importance of statutory ingredients: The judgment reinforces that criminal offences cannot be established merely by using the terminology contained in a penal provision. The factual allegations must actually satisfy every essential ingredient of the offence.

Effect of framing of charge: A significant procedural point is that the High Court's inherent power does not necessarily end merely because a charge has already been framed. Where the foundational allegations do not constitute an offence, continuation of proceedings can still be examined under Section 482 CrPC.

Criminal conspiracy: The Court required more than an inference based upon family relationships or subsequent conduct. A conspiracy allegation ordinarily requires material indicating a meeting of minds to commit the unlawful act.

Criminal intimidation: The Court treated the alleged threat as insufficiently specific. For criminal proceedings to continue, the allegation must contain sufficient factual particulars to disclose the ingredients of the offence.

Disputed affidavit: Rather than conducting a detailed factual enquiry into whether the complainant voluntarily consented to the children's relocation, the Court adopted a narrower approach. It held that even without relying upon the affidavit, the FIR failed to establish the alleged offences.

Section 482 CrPC: The decision illustrates the role of inherent jurisdiction in preventing criminal proceedings from continuing where the allegations, even if accepted at face value, do not constitute the offences alleged.

Custody remains a distinct legal question: The judgment does not determine who was legally entitled to custody of the children or whether taking them to Italy was lawful. It determines only that the particular allegations did not satisfy the ingredients of the IPC offences invoked.

Overall significance: The ruling reinforces the principle that criminal law cannot be expanded merely because conduct may give rise to a serious family or custody dispute. The prosecution must establish the specific statutory ingredients of the offence charged.