Son-In-Law’s Case Over Alleged Removal Of 215g Gold, ₹2 Lakh From Mother-In-Law’s Home To Continue: Karnataka HC

The complainant alleged that she entrusted the petitioner, her son-in-law, with the keys to her house while she was away. She claimed that he dishonestly removed gold ornaments, cash and property documents from the house, and lodged a complaint on 2 April 2019 alleging criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the IPC

After investigation, the police filed a ‘B’ report. The complainant objected, and the jurisdictional court proceeded with an inquiry. The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 1589/2025, including the cognizance order dated 15 March 2025, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., now Section 528 of the BNSS.

Section 406 of the IPC concerns punishment for criminal breach of trust; proceedings may continue where the complaint and other materials prima facie disclose the ingredients of the alleged offence.

The High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (Section 528 of the BNSS) may be exercised to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice, but is not ordinarily a means to assess evidence or resolve disputed questions of fact at the threshold. Relying on M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918, the Court reiterated that factual disputes are not to be adjudicated in a quashing petition.

The complainant’s account was that the petitioner received the house keys in a position of trust and then removed valuables and documents without authority. The Court considered those allegations sufficient, at the prima facie stage, to attract Section 406 of the IPC.

The petitioner’s arguments concerning the ‘B’ report, absence of recovery, delay and the nature of the allegations raised factual matters that the Court held could not be resolved by appreciating evidence under Section 482. As the matter required a full trial, the Court declined to quash the proceedings.

The criminal petition was dismissed; pending applications were disposed of, and the Court clarified that its observations were made only for deciding the petition.