FIR against relatives quashed where allegations disclosed no entrustment, deception, or prima facie conspiracy.

The petitioners invoked Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of FIR C.R. No. I-86 of 2017 registered at Anand Town Police Station for offences under Sections 406, 420, 34, 120-B read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the consequential proceedings.

The FIR alleged that Jaimin Vyankatesh Pandya, son of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2, had fraudulently married Kruti, the complainant’s niece, on 5 March 2013 in order to enter Canada and thereafter travel to the United States. It was alleged that the petitioners, being Jaimin’s parents/brother, had aided, abetted and conspired in the alleged fraud.

The marriage was subsequently dissolved by divorce on 21 December 2016. The petitioners contended that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of approximately four years, contained vague and general allegations, and attributed no specific role to them.

During the proceedings, petitioner No. 1 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 9644 of 2017 died on 16 October 2025; the petition stood abated qua him.

Whether the allegations in the FIR and chargesheet disclosed the essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC against the petitioners, particularly entrustment of property or dominion over property.

Whether the allegations disclosed cheating under Sections 415/420 IPC, including fraudulent or dishonest inducement from the inception of the transaction, attributable to the petitioners.

Whether the petitioners could be prosecuted for criminal conspiracy, common intention or abetment under Sections 34, 120-B and 114 IPC on the basis of the allegations and materials in the chargesheet.

Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings against the surviving petitioners amounted to an abuse of the process of law warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

The Court applied Section 482 CrPC, which empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

For Section 406 IPC, relying on Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 (10) SCC 690, and the principles in S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar, (2002) 1 SCC 241, the Court held that there must be entrustment of property or dominion over property followed by dishonest misappropriation, conversion or disposal.

For cheating under Sections 415 and 420 IPC, the prosecution must show deception, fraudulent or dishonest inducement, and resulting or likely damage; the dishonest intention must exist from the inception.

The Court further applied the settled distinction between cheating and criminal breach of trust, observing that the two offences possess different and generally mutually exclusive ingredients.

Allegations of conspiracy or common intention cannot rest merely on bald assertions; the prosecution material must disclose circumstances from which such participation can reasonably be inferred.

The Court found no allegation that Kruti’s property had been entrusted to, or placed under the dominion of, the petitioners, and therefore the foundational requirement of Section 406 IPC was absent.

The allegations also did not specify any false representation, deceptive act or dishonest inducement by the petitioners which caused Kruti to marry Jaimin or suffer legally cognizable harm.

The fact that Jaimin allegedly used the marriage to obtain immigration benefits, and that the marriage later ended in divorce, did not by itself establish that the petitioners possessed fraudulent intent from the inception or had committed cheating.

The Court also noted that Kruti had stayed with the petitioners only for a short period, which weakened the allegations against them.

Although the complainant alleged that the petitioners had conspired with Jaimin, the chargesheet contained no specific acts, circumstances or material demonstrating their participation; the petitioners appeared to have been implicated primarily because of their relationship with Jaimin.

In the absence of the ingredients of Sections 406 or 420 IPC, the ancillary allegations under Sections 34, 120-B and 114 IPC could not independently sustain the prosecution, making continuation of the proceedings an abuse of process.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 9644 of 2017 stood abated qua deceased petitioner No. 1.

The FIR C.R. No. I-86 of 2017 and all consequential proceedings were quashed and set aside qua petitioner No. 2 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 9644 of 2017 and the petitioner in Criminal Misc. Application No. 9645 of 2017.

The Court clarified that its observations would not prejudice the investigation or trial concerning original accused No. 1, Jaimin Vyankatesh Pandya.