ARUN KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition, filed under Sec. 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS'), is for quashing of FIR No. 109 dtd. 28/5/2025, registered under Ss. 115, 126, 140(3) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') at Police Station Sector 20, Panchkula along with all the subsequent proceedings having emanated therefrom.

(2.) The brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by complainant/respondent No. 2 Meghna Rana alleging therein that her marriage was solemnized with the present petitioner on 25/11/2015. A male child, namely Atharva, was born on 14/2/2018 out of the said wedlock. They were residing in USA. She was subjected to repeated physical, mental and emotional abuse at the hands of the petitioner. She left his company and came to India with the child in the year 2022. The petitioner obtained an ex-parte divorce from a Court at Florida. The petitioner approached this Court by way of filing a habeas corpus petition bearing CRWP-8059-2024 seeking release of the child in his favour but the same was dismissed by this Court. On 28/5/2025, the petitioner, accompanied by 2-3 persons, came outside the house of the complainant and forcibly grabbed the child from the hands of the complainant's father and abducted him. He also attacked her father and sprayed some chemical in his eyes, causing severe pain and temporary loss of vision. He also extended severe beatings to him. The entire incident took place in front of the minor child, who got traumatized. The petitioner, while leaving with the child, also extended threats to kill the complainant and her father, if they would try to take any legal action against him. She expressed her apprehension that the petitioner would take minor child to USA and subject him to harm, psychological trauma or immoral influences. The complainant, thus, prayed for taking action in the matter. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. The petitioner was granted concession of bail. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking quashing of the impugned FIR. Vide order dtd. 30/7/2025, further proceedings in the impugned FIR were stayed by this Court.

(3.) It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned FIR has been registered purely as an abuse of the process of law and is a direct outcome of strained matrimonial relations between the parties. The respondent No. 2/complainant and the petitioner have been litigating on issues relating to marriage and custody of the minor child and the criminal machinery has been invoked with a view to settle personal scores and to pressurize the petitioner. The complainant admittedly left the matrimonial home in the year 2022 and came to India along with the minor child without the consent of the petitioner. The petitioner, being the biological father, has consistently asserted his parental rights and sought lawful custody of the child through appropriate legal remedies. The lodging of the present FIR is nothing but a counterblast to the petitioner's efforts to secure custody of his son. The petitioner is the natural guardian of the minor child and his act of taking custody of his own son cannot, in the facts and circumstances of the case, constitute an offence of kidnapping or abduction. It is a settled position of law that custody of a minor by one natural guardian does not amount to kidnapping from another natural guardian, particularly in the absence of any subsisting order of a competent court restraining such custody. The allegations levelled in the FIR, even if taken at their face value, essentially relate to a dispute over custody and visitation rights, which fall squarely within the domain of civil and family law. Such disputes cannot be given a criminal colour so as to subject the petitioner to prosecution for serious penal offences.