CRL.M.C./6701/2026 of BRIJ MOHAN & ANR. Vs THE STATE (GNCT OF DELHI)) & ANR. on 10 September 2026

O R D E R

%

10.09.2026

1. By way of this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 75/2020, dated 31.01.2020, registered at Police Station Bhalswa Dairy, Outer North District, Delhi, under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], alongwith consequential proceedings arising therefrom, as against them.

2. I have heard Mr. Pardeep Khatri, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Hitesh Vali, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. The present case concerns kidnapping of a four-year-old child, while he was playing outside his house. The FIR was registered at the instance of the victim’s mother. The prosecution case is that the child was kidnapped by one Rubina. He was then handed over from one co-accused to the other and ultimately ended up in the custody of the present petitioners, from where he was recovered on 03.02.2020.

4. The petitioners – husband and wife, on the other hand, contend that they were desirous of adopting a male child for which they approached co-accused Kuldeep Kaushik, who is a doctor known to them. It is stated that they paid Dr. Kaushik a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- for arranging an adoption. However, Mr. Khatri states that the petitioners had no idea, at any stage, that the child would be kidnapped or otherwise procured by illegal means. Their expectation was that the adoption would be arranged through a legal procedure. The petitioners were granted regular bail by the Sessions Court on 12.10.2020 and 24.02.2020, respectively.

5. Mr. Vali points out that, at this stage, charges have been framed by the Sessions Court against the petitioners and other co-accused persons, under Sections 363/365/368/120B/34 of the IPC, vide order on charge dated 08.07.2026. This order is not under challenge.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any reason to quash the proceedings against the petitioners, at this stage.

7. In the present case, the prosecution case reveals a network of child trafficking, whereby the complainant’s four-year-old child was picked up from outside his house and handed over, through a series of intermediaries, to the petitioners. The child was recovered from their custody. The question of satisfaction of the ingredients of the charged offences is a matter of trial. The petitioners will have the opportunity to advance their case in accordance with law. The relevance and factual evidence regarding the petitioners’ awareness of the manner in which the “arrangement”, which they had admittedly entered into with co-accused Kuldeep Kaushik, was to be implemented, is not a question which can be adjudicated at this stage. The charges having been framed, it cannot be accepted simply on the ipse dixit of the petitioners, that they were unaware of the mechanism which was to be employed by the co-accused.

8. In these facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the present case does not disclose any offence against the petitioners. Further, at this stage, there is no material on record to indicate that the present proceedings amounts to an abuse of process of law. No other ground warranting interference has been urged by the petitioners.

9. Having regard to the aforesaid, the petition, alongwith pending application, is dismissed.

10. It is made clear that the rights and contentions of the parties in the pending criminal proceedings remain reserved. PRATEEK JALAN, J SEPTEMBER 10, 2026 “B”/SM/