The Delhi High Court has partly quashed criminal proceedings against a US-based medical practitioner in a matrimonial dispute, holding that the complaint and final report did not disclose the necessary ingredient of entrustment or dominion over the jewellery qua the petitioner for sustaining proceedings under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, the Court allowed proceedings under Section 498A IPC to continue.
Justice Madhu Jain delivered the judgment on September 16, 2026, in a petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 184/2019 registered at Kirti Nagar Police Station, Delhi.
The petitioner, a medical practitioner and US citizen, had married the respondent in October 2007. The parties subsequently lived separately, with the petitioner residing in the United States.
In 2019, the respondent approached the Crime Against Women Cell alleging matrimonial cruelty, demands for money and a vehicle, and non-return of jewellery. The allegations included a demand of approximately ₹16–17 crore for purchasing land and establishing a hospital. Based on the complaint, FIR No. 184/2019 was registered under Sections 498A and 406 read with Section 34 IPC.
After the investigation, a final report dated April 14, 2022, was filed before the Trial Court on June 21, 2022. The petitioner was sent for trial, without arrest, under Sections 498A and 406 of the IPC. He subsequently approached the Delhi High Court seeking quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings, relying, among other grounds, on the delay in initiating the criminal case, the foreign annulment decree and documents relating to the parties’ visa proceedings.
Justice Madhu Jain noted that the complaint contained specific allegations rather than merely vague or general accusations. The respondent had alleged demands for money and a vehicle, physical and sexual cruelty, and incidents allegedly occurring during the petitioner's visit to Delhi in 2012.
The Court observed:
"Whether the alleged incidents occurred, whether the monetary transactions bore the character attributed to them, and whether respondent No. 2 would ultimately be able to prove the allegations are all matters and questions of evidence which cannot be determined at this stage."
The Court also considered the limitation issue. It held that the plea could not conclusively terminate the Section 498A proceedings at this stage because the statutory provisions permitting exclusion of certain periods and extension of limitation required consideration by the Trial Court.
On the allegation concerning jewellery, however, the Court found a specific legal deficiency. The complaint stated that the jewellery had been handed over to the petitioner's sister-in-law, rather than to the petitioner. The record did not show that the jewellery was subsequently entrusted to him or came under his control.
The Court held that the essential requirement of entrustment or dominion over the property was absent against the petitioner.
It further held that the criminal breach of trust proceedings could therefore not be sustained against him, while noting that the High Court could quash proceedings only in respect of a particular offence.
The High Court partly allowed the petition. It quashed the FIR, charge-sheet and consequential proceedings against the petitioner insofar as they related to Section 406 IPC.
The proceedings concerning Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC were permitted to continue in accordance with law. The Trial Court was directed to independently examine the limitation issue before taking cognizance, including the applicability of Sections 470 and 473 CrPC.
The Court clarified that its observations did not amount to a finding on the merits of the remaining Section 498A prosecution.
Case Title: Harcharanjeet Bains v. State & Anr.
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 4517/2023 & CRL.M.A. 17279/2023
-300x169.webp)
 Act (UAPA)-300x169.webp)
