Allegations of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC quashed due to lack of entrustment; Delay in filing complaint does not automatically bar prosecution under limitation laws.
In a significant judgment delivered on September 16, 2026, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Madhu Jain, partly quashed the First Information Report (FIR) No. 184/2019 registered at Kirti Nagar Police Station in a matrimonial dispute involving allegations of cruelty and criminal breach of trust. The petition was filed by Harcharanjeet Bains against the State and his wife (respondent No. 2), challenging the FIR registered under Sections 498A (cruelty) and 406 (criminal breach of trust) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Court meticulously examined the facts, including the parties' marriage in 2007, the petitioner's residence in the United States since 1995, and the foreign annulment decree obtained by the petitioner in Missouri on grounds of fraud. The respondent had lodged complaints alleging cruelty, including physical and sexual harassment, monetary demands exceeding Rs. 16 crores for property and hospital establishment, and non-return of jewellery purportedly entrusted to the petitioner's sister-in-law.
A key point of contention was the delay in filing the complaint, with the last alleged act of cruelty dated around 2012 and the complaint lodged in 2019. The petitioner argued the delay barred prosecution under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which prescribes limitation periods for cognizance of offences.
The Court relied on settled Supreme Court precedents, emphasizing that matrimonial cruelty under Section 498A IPC is a continuing offence and the limitation period starts from the last act of cruelty. It held that the delay in filing the complaint was not an automatic bar, especially considering the petitioner's absence from India, which could exclude certain periods from limitation under Section 470 CrPC. Moreover, Section 473 CrPC allows cognizance beyond limitation if delay is properly explained or necessary in the interest of justice.
Crucially, the Court found that the allegations under Section 498A IPC prima facie disclosed cruelty and harassment and thus could not be quashed at the pre-trial stage. However, the Court quashed the prosecution under Section 406 IPC against the petitioner. It reasoned that the complaint did not establish essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust, specifically the entrustment of jewellery to the petitioner or his dominion over it. The jewellery was allegedly entrusted to the petitioner's sister-in-law, who was not charge-sheeted due to lack of evidence. Therefore, continuing the Section 406 prosecution against the petitioner would be an abuse of process.
The Court underscored the principle of partial quashing of FIRs and charge sheets, allowing prosecution to continue only on the charges supported by prima facie material. The judgment also clarified that the trial court must independently assess the limitation plea regarding the remaining offence, considering exclusions and the interests of justice.
This judgment reiterates the delicate balance courts must maintain in matrimonial offences, ensuring genuine complaints are not stifled by procedural bars, while protecting accused persons from frivolous or unsupported allegations.
Bottom Line:
Quashing of FIR - Allegations under Section 498A IPC survive, but allegations under Section 406 IPC quashed due to lack of ingredients of entrustment and dishonest misappropriation.
Statutory provision(s): Section 482 CrPC, Sections 498A, 406, 34 IPC, Sections 468, 469, 470, 472, 473 CrPC, Section 13(1)(ia), (ib) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Harcharanjeet Bains v. State, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2980014
