Interim Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 20 Ct. Cases / 725/2026
Harshdeep Singh Sahni Vs. Gurpreet Kaur Chadha And Ors
/0 (Model Town)
12.06.2026
Present: None.
I have carefully considered the application under Section 175(3) BNSS, the
ATR as well as the documents relied upon.
Arguments already heard previously on 11.06.2026.
1. Complainant/applicant prays for registration of an FIR in the present
matter on the ground that the proposed accused persons are Smt. Gurpreet Kaur
Chadha (mother-in-law of the applicant), Sh. Manjeet Singh Kohli (Mausa of wife of
applicant) & Smt. Sanjeet Kaur Kohli (Sister of mother-in-law of applicant) who in
furtherance of common intention kidnapped the two minor daughters of the applicant
from his lawful custody on 23.04.2026. It is submitted that the wife of the applicant
left the matrimonial home on 09.12.2024 leaving her minor daughters and
husband/applicant behind. That, the wife of the applicant has also filed a case under
DV Act bearing CC No. 100/2025 pending before the Ld. JMFC, Rohini Courts,
Delhi wherein in prayer (III) she has prayed for an order directing the respondent
no.01 therein/applicant herein to bring the daughters of the applicant before the
Hon’ble Court for visitation/meeting the daughters. That the wife of the applicant as
per his knowledge is residing in Dubai alongwith her parents. Whereas the applicant
is residing at Model Town with his mother and his two minor daughters. That by way
of a conspiracy, the mother-in-law of the applicant came to the residence of the
applicant on 23.04.2026 at 04:00 PM whereas the other proposed accused remained
seated in a white MG Hector car bearing no. DL10CV6614 outside the residence of
the applicant. That mother of the applicant informed the applicant telephonically that
his mother-in-law had arrived at their house and was insisting to take the minor
daughters of the applicant alongwith her and represented that the children are being
taken temporarily and shall be returned back before 08:00 PM on the same day and
upon this assurance the mother of the applicant permitted the children to accompany
-- 1 of 6 --
her. But, there was dishonest intention on the part of the proposed accused to remove
the children from the lawful custody of the applicant as the children were not brought
back till 08:00 PM as promised. Aggrieved, the applicant went to the residence of
proposed accused no. 02 to inquire about whereabouts of his daughters and there he
met proposed accused no.01 who informed the applicant that the children would
remain with them during the night of 23.04.2026 and shall be brought back at the
residence of the applicant the next morning. Despite objections raised by the
applicant that the children are required to attend school the next day, the custody of
his minor daughters was wrongfully retained during the night of 23.04.2026. Even
next morning on 24.04.2026, the minor daughters were not brought back to the
residence of the applicant as promised, whereupon the applicant made several calls
telephonically to the proposed accused persons but to no avail as they did not answer
the calls. Thereafter, applicant again visited residence of proposed accused no.02 and
found the same completely locked and was informed that proposed accused no.02 had
left with the family members at about 04:00-05:00 AM in the morning. The applicant
tried to contact proposed accused no.2 & 3 on their phone numbers but same were
switched off. Having serious apprehension that his minor daughters shall be illegally
removed out of India, the applicant lodged a complaint on 25.04.2026 before SHO
concerned. The daughters of the applicant are students of class III & IV in Jesus &
Mary School, Bangla Sahib Road, New Delhi and they have not been able to attend
their classes at school. On 28.04.2026, applicant received two messages from UIDAI
where from he came to know that the proposed accused have fraudulently updated the
demographic or biometric information i.e. addresses/mobile number associated with
the Aadhar Cards of the children of the applicant to facilitate their exit from India and
changed their addresses to a Punjabi Bagh address. Again on 07.05.2026, the
applicant received two messages from the Regional Passport Office, Delhi that the
proposed accused have applied for new passports for his daughters on the misleading
pretext that the old passports are lost whereas in actuality the passports of the minor
daughters are in the possession of the applicant. That despite various complaints to
-- 2 of 6 --
the SHO and ACP as well as DCP concerned, no action was taken. Hence present
application.
2. The EO upon preliminary inquiry vide ATR filed on 25.05.2026 has
stated therein that no cognizable offence is made out. Further, inquiry was conducted
from the mother of the children who stated that she is residing in Dubai but regularly
remains in contact with her children through telephone calls, and that she has come to
Delhi on 12.03.2026 from Dubai due to war situation there and was staying at her
maternal Aunt’s house which is situated only 500 meters from her matrimonial home.
She further stated that on 23.04.2026 she and her mother had gone to her matrimonial
house to pick up the children after talking to them over the phone during which the
children themselves asked their grandmother to come and take them. The mother of
the children disclosed that she remained seated in the car whereas her mother went to
the gate of the matrimonial home to receive the children and thereafter they brought
the children to her maternal aunt’s house at around 05:00 PM. When at 07:00 PM, the
driver came to take the children back, her younger daughter started crying and saying
she did not want to go back so the children did not return to the house of the
applicant. Further, the wife of the applicant disclosed that in order to avoid further
dispute or commotion they took the children to her sister’s house at Agra, Uttar
Pradesh where the children are residing with her happily and spending their summer
vacations. During inquiry, the wife of the applicant arranged a video call with both
the children during which the children appeared happy and comfortable and the
children stated that they wished to stay with their mother. That the inquiry has
revealed that the children are within India. The wife of the applicant also stated that
the passports of the children are in possession of the applicant. The wife of the
applicant also disclosed that she has separated from her husband in December, 2024
and thereafter shifted to Dubai. The wife of the applicant further stated that she has
no objection in sending the children back home but the children themselves are
unwilling to return.
-- 3 of 6 --
3. Further, a report was filed on behalf of UIDAI as per which Aadhar
related information can be given pursuant to order from Hon’ble High Court as per
Aadhar Act, 2016.
4. Report was also filed on behalf of the Regional Passport Office as per
which Passport re-issue application was filed by the mother of the children under
Lost Passport category on 07.05.2026 at PSK, Jhandewalan alongwith copies of FIR
pertaining to lost passports and supporting documents and it was also mentioned that
the other parent is residing abroad and unable to provide consent for re-issuance of
passport to the minor children. Thereafter, complaint of the father of the children i.e.
applicant herein was also received raising objections to re-issuance of passports to the
minors. Thereafter, the mother of the minor children gave a request vide e-mail dated
22.05.2026 seeking closure of the passport re-issuance applications whereafter, both
the passport applications were closed on 25.05.2026.
5. In this regard, it becomes imperative to keep in consideration the
circumstances, when an application or prayer u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. should be entertained
by the court. In Ms. Skipper beverages P.Ltd. Vs. State 2002 Crl. L.J. NOC 333
(Delhi), the circumstances when the powers of magistrate U/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C should
be exercised, has been explained.
6. It is true that Section 156(3) of the Code empowers a Magistrate to
direct the police to register a case and initiate investigations but this power has to be
exercised judiciously on proper grounds and not in a mechanical manner. In those
cases where the allegations are not very serious and the complainant himself is in
possession of evidence to prove his allegations there should be no need to pass orders
under Section 156(3) of the Code. The discretion ought to be exercised after proper
application of mind and only in those cases where the Magistrate is of the view that
the nature of the allegations is such that the complainant himself may not be in a
position to collect and produce evidence before the Court and interests of justice
demand that the police should step in to help the complainant. The police assistance
can be taken by a Magistrate even Under Section 202(1) of the Code after taking
cognizance and proceeding with the complaint under Chapter XV of the Code as held
-- 4 of 6 --
by Apex Court in 2001 (1) Supreme Page 129 titled "Suresh Chand Jain Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh & Ors."
7. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has vehemently placed reliance upon
judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh In Re Khalandar Saheb, 1954
SCC online AP 103 and argued that the minor children were under the lawful
guradianship of the applicant i.e. father of the minor children but the proposed
accused with wrongful intention kept the minor children beyond the agreed time and
did not return the minor children back to the applicant. Further, reliance was placed
upon judgment of the Full Bench of Patna High Court in Mt. Kesar & Ors Vs.
Emperor, 1918 SCC Online PAT 212 and it was argued that since the minor children
were kept out of the keeping of the lawful guardian i.e. applicant father of the
children without his consent the proposed accused have committed the offence of
kidnapping. It is further argued by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble
Lahore High Court in Gurdit Singh Vs. Emperor, 1916, SCC Online Lahore 10 that
the proposed accused rather than returning the minor children to the applicant
transferred their custody to the mother of the minor children whereas the applicant
i.e. father as per Hindu Law is the first natural guardian of the minor children and
only after him, the mother is the natural guardian. Reliance was also placed upon Full
Bench Reference in Revision No. 123/1900 in Nemai Chattoraj Vs. The
Empress,Hon’ble Calcutta High Court that the offence was complete when the minor
children were taken from the keeping of the guardian i.e. out of the control of the
applicant herein. Also, reliance was placed upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in State of Haryana Versus Raja Ram, 1973 1SCC 544 and it was argued that
consent of the minor children is immaterial and the object of the Section is to protect
the minor children from being seduced for improper purposes as well as to protect
the rights on privileges of the guardians having lawful charge or custody of their
minor wards. Reliance was also placed upon Jugdment of the Hon’ble Madras High
Court in Jagannadha Rao & Ors. Vs. Kamaraju and it was argued that the children
have been carried off to Agra, U.P. by the wife of the applicant due to the aid and
connivance of the proposed accused who were granted only temporary custody of the
-- 5 of 6 --
children by the applicant i.e. their lawful guardian who is on a higher pedestal than
his wife i.e. the mother of the children. That further the malicious intent can be seen
from the fact that false lost reports were lodged regarding the passports of the
children and attempts were made for re-issuance of fresh passports of the children at
a separate address by maliciously changing the biometric Aadhar details of the minor
children so as to take them out of India.
8. It appears that all the evidences are within the reach of the
complainant/applicant. The identity of the proposed accused is known to the
complainant/applicant. Complainant is aware of the witnesses who may depose in his
favour. The complainant can summon the required record from PS and Regional
Passport Office easily. There is no requirement of any field investigation by the
police. This Court is not inclined to exercise the discretionary powers vested under
the provision u/s 175(3) BNSS. This Court is of the view that complainant must
establish the allegations by leading pre-summoning evidence.
Accordingly the application u/s 175(3) BNSS is dismissed.
Put up for P.S.E on 02.11.2026.
(Aakash Sharma)
JMFC-03/ North/ Rohini/ Delhi
12.06.2026
-- 6 of 6 --