CRL.M.C./5471/2026 of ABHISHEK KUMAR & ANR. Vs THE STATE( GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. on 28 September 2026

O R D E R

% 28.09.2026

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. By way of the present petition, the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 275/2022, registered at Police Station Anand Vihar, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 406/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and the proceedings emanating therefrom.

3. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that respondent No. 2 had purchased a vehicle bearing registration No. DL-14CC-7509, a Maruti Swift on loan. It is alleged in the FIR that in January, 2017, petitioner No. 1 took the said vehicle on the pretext of getting it serviced and thereafter retained the same and continued to use it. It is further alleged that when respondent No. 2 demanded return of the vehicle, the petitioners refused to do so and extended threats to him.

4. The petitioners on the other hand, contend that the vehicle was purchased for the use and convenience of the daughter of petitioner No. 2, who is the wife of respondent No. 2 and that although the vehicle was registered in the name of respondent No. 2, the payments towards the vehicle, including the loan instalments and subsequent loan settlement were made by the petitioners. It is also their case that the vehicle remained openly in their possession and that they continued to bear the expenses towards its insurance, servicing and maintenance.

5. It is further the case of the petitioners that there were no contemporaneous allegations regarding the vehicle for several years and that the present FIR arose subsequently in the backdrop of matrimonial disputes between respondent No. 2 and his wife. The petitioners have also relied upon the fact that the vehicle was serviced and maintained at Patna, Bihar and that the insurance premiums continued to be paid by them. The aforesaid contentions are, however, disputed by respondent No. 2.

6. It is further borne out from the record that a closure report was initially filed in the matter. Respondent No. 2 thereafter filed a protest petition, pursuant to which the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 10.02.2026 permitted further investigation. During the course of further investigation, the bank statements of the concerned persons were obtained and examined.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute between the parties arises out of matrimonial discord. He submits that the complainant has instituted several proceedings not only against his wife but also against her family members. It is submitted that petitioner No. 1 is the brother-in-law and petitioner No. 2 is the father-in-law of the complainant. Learned counsel further submits that there are no allegations which make out a case of entrustment against the petitioners and consequently, no offence under Section 406 IPC is made out.

8. Per contra, learned APP for the State submits that the vehicle in question is presently in the possession of the petitioners and that there are specific allegations regarding its entrustment to the petitioners.

9. He further submits that under Section 482 of CRPC (corresponding to Section 528 of BNSS) this Court is not required to conduct a mini trial and the allegations and the counter-allegations are the matter requiring evidence.

10. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 also submits that the vehicle was entrusted to the petitioners, who thereafter took the same to Bihar and retained it. It is submitted that the vehicle is registered in the name of respondent No. 2 and no case for quashing is made out.

11. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

12. It is an admitted position that there are various litigations pending between the parties, arising out of the matrimonial dispute between the complainant and his wife. The petitioners are stated to be the brother-in-law and father-in-law of the complainant.

13. The Investigating Officer, in the status report, has also verified that the vehicle in question stands in the name of the complainant. At the same time, the status report records that the payments towards the purchase of the said vehicle were made by the petitioners. Thus, while the registration of the vehicle is in the name of the complainant, the parties have raised rival claims regarding its possession, ownership and entrustment.

14. Be that as it may, the fact remains that at present the vehicle is stated to be in the possession of the petitioners. The question as to whether the vehicle was entrusted to the petitioners, whether such entrustment was pursuant to the arrangement between the parties, and whether the subsequent retention of the vehicle constitutes misappropriation, are disputed questions of fact. These questions cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C./Section 528 of the BNSS, as the same would require consideration of the evidence.

15. At this stage, the case of the petitioners cannot be accepted as the gospel truth so as to discard the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during investigation. The Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, is not required to conduct a mini trial or undertake a detailed appreciation of evidence.

16. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no ground for quashing of the proceedings is made out.

17. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.

18. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 28, 2026/b/P