The Delhi High Court has held that a general allegation of non-return of stridhan cannot sustain prosecution for criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC against every member of a matrimonial family, unless the complaint and charge-sheet disclose entrustment or dominion over the property attributable to the particular accused and subsequent dishonest dealing with it. Justice Madhu Jain made the observation while partly quashing a matrimonial FIR against a husband under Section 406 IPC, while allowing the prosecution under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC to continue.
The Court found that the complaint specifically alleged that the jewellery had been handed over to the petitioner’s sister-in-law, Sukhjit Kaur, and did not allege that it was subsequently entrusted to the petitioner or came under his dominion or control. It therefore concluded that the essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust were absent against him.
Background
The petitioner, a medical practitioner and US citizen residing there since 1995, married respondent No. 2 on October 16, 2007 in New Delhi. No child was born from the wedlock. After the petitioner returned to the United States, efforts were made to secure a spousal visa for respondent No. 2, but the process did not ultimately progress.
In December 2013, the petitioner instituted annulment proceedings before the Circuit Court of Greene County, Missouri. The marriage was annulled by a judgment and decree dated January 15, 2015 on the ground of fraud. The petitioner later instituted proceedings under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court in Delhi, which were withdrawn in January 2019.
Respondent No. 2 subsequently approached the Crime Against Women Cell alleging matrimonial cruelty, demands for cash and a vehicle, a further demand of approximately ₹16-17 crore for purchasing land and establishing a hospital, and non-return of jewellery stated to have been entrusted to the petitioner’s sister-in-law.
Following an enquiry, FIR No. 184/2019 was registered at Police Station Kirti Nagar on June 23, 2019 under Sections 498A and 406 read with Section 34 IPC. After investigation, the petitioner was sent for trial, without arrest, for offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC. The investigating agency placed Sukhjit Kaur in Column No. 12 as a person not charge-sheeted.
Arguments Before the High Court
The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR under Section 482 CrPC, arguing that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process and had been initiated as a counterblast to the matrimonial proceedings.
His counsel also raised limitation under Section 468 CrPC, submitting that Sections 498A and 406 IPC were punishable with imprisonment not exceeding three years and that the criminal complaint had been initiated beyond the prescribed period. The petitioner further relied upon the foreign annulment decree, visa records and communications with immigration lawyers in support of his case.
Respondent No. 2 opposed the petition and maintained that the complaint contained specific allegations. Her counsel referred to alleged acts of physical and sexual cruelty, demands for an Innova vehicle and approximately ₹16-17 crore, an alleged payment of ₹7 lakh to the petitioner’s brother, and alleged retention of jewellery.
Section 498A Allegations Disclose Prima Facie Case
The High Court found that the allegations against the petitioner could not be described as merely vague or omnibus. It noted specific allegations of repeated insults and abuse, monetary demands and physical and sexual cruelty.
The Court observed:
“The aforesaid allegations, when accepted at their face value for the limited purpose of the present proceedings, disclose a prima facie case of cruelty and harassment by the petitioner.”
It held that whether the incidents actually occurred, the nature of the alleged monetary transactions, and whether respondent No. 2 could ultimately prove the allegations were questions of evidence that could not be decided at the quashing stage.
The foreign decree, visa records and communications relied upon by the petitioner could support his defence concerning the matrimonial relationship and visa process, but the Court found that they did not conclusively rule out the specific acts alleged to have occurred in India.
No Entrustment of Stridhan Alleged to Petitioner
Turning separately to Section 406 IPC, the High Court noted that criminal breach of trust requires entrustment of property to the accused or dominion over that property, followed by dishonest misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal.
Examining the complaint, the Court found that the foundational allegation of entrustment to the petitioner was absent. Respondent No. 2 had specifically alleged that she handed over the jewellery to the petitioner’s sister-in-law, Sukhjit Kaur, to be kept in her locker.
The complaint did not state that the jewellery was subsequently handed over to the petitioner or came under his dominion or control. It also did not identify any demand for return of the jewellery made to the petitioner followed by refusal, conversion or disposal by him with dishonest intent.
The Court found that the charge-sheet did not cure this deficiency. While the petitioner had been sent for trial under Sections 498A and 406 IPC, the final report itself recorded the allegation that the jewellery remained in the possession of Sukhjit Kaur. The investigating agency had placed her in Column No. 12 after recording that no evidence was found against her.
The Court further clarified that allegations that jewellery or other articles were purchased or that certain items were given to the petitioner as gifts would not by themselves satisfy the requirement of entrustment under Section 405 IPC unless there was an allegation that respondent No. 2 retained ownership and placed those items with him in trust.
It also held that, in the absence of an allegation or material showing common intention between the petitioner and his sister-in-law concerning retention or misappropriation of the jewellery, her alleged custody could not be imputed to him merely because of the matrimonial relationship.
General Non-Return Allegation Cannot Sustain Section 406 Case Against Every Family Member
The High Court relied upon the Division Bench decision in Raj Kumar Khanna v. State (NCT of Delhi), where proceedings under Section 406 IPC were quashed for want of entrustment while the prosecution under Section 498A IPC was allowed to continue.
Drawing from that decision, the Court held:
“The principle emerging from the aforesaid decision is that a general allegation of non-return of stridhan cannot sustain a prosecution under Section 406 of IPC against every member of the matrimonial family.”
The Court added:
“The complaint and the charge-sheet must disclose the entrustment or dominion attributed to the particular accused and the subsequent dishonest dealing with the entrusted property.”
Even after accepting the prosecution material in its entirety, the Court found these ingredients absent against the petitioner and held that allowing the Section 406 IPC prosecution to continue against him would amount to an abuse of the process of court.
The Court also referred to Ishwar Pratap Singh v. State of U.P., Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and Arun Singh v. State of U.P. while explaining that a charge-sheet can be quashed in part and that the enquiry for quashing is offence-specific.
Limitation Plea Left for Trial Court
On the plea of limitation, the High Court noted that the applicable period under Section 468(2)(c) CrPC was three years. However, it held that a bare calendar calculation was not conclusive because the statutory exclusions and extensions under Sections 470 and 473 CrPC also required consideration.
The Court noted that Section 470(4)(a) requires exclusion of the period during which an offender remains absent from India. Since the record did not contain the petitioner’s complete passport, immigration or entry-exit record, a conclusive day-to-day calculation could not be made at this stage.
Respondent No. 2 had also attributed the delay to her continuing hope that the marriage would survive. The Court clarified:
“This Court is neither condoning the delay nor recording a final finding upon that explanation.”
It held that these circumstances required judicial consideration and prevented Section 468 CrPC from operating as an automatic ground for quashing the FIR.
Decision
The Delhi High Court partly allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 184/2019, the charge-sheet and all consequential proceedings against the petitioner insofar as they concerned the offence under Section 406 IPC.
The FIR and consequential proceedings under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC were allowed to continue in accordance with law.
The Court directed the trial court to independently determine the limitation plea before taking cognizance of the remaining offence, including the period, if any, to be excluded under Section 470 CrPC and the applicability of Section 473 CrPC.
It also clarified that its observations should not be construed as an expression on the merits of the remaining prosecution or as a finding that its ingredients had been established against the petitioner.
Case Title: Harcharanjeet Bains v. State & Anr.
Case No.: CRL.M.C. 4517/2023 & CRL.M.A. 17279/2023
Bench: Justice Madhu Jain
Date: September 16, 2026
