Delhi Court Restores Complaint, Orders Prosecution Of Congress Leader Bhanwar Jitendra Singh For Criminal Breach Of Trust Over Unreturned MF Husain Painting Worth Over ₹1 Crore
Pranav B Prem
The Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-23, Rouse Avenue Court Complex, New Delhi, Jitendra Singh, has ordered the prosecution of Congress leader and former Minister of State for Home Affairs, Bhanwar Jitendra Singh, for criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with the alleged non-return of a valuable painting by celebrated artist M.F. Husain, reportedly worth over ₹1 crore.
The order came in a criminal revision petition (No. 24/2025) filed by Rohit Singh Mahiyaria, challenging the March 21, 2025 order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) that had dismissed his complaint. The complaint alleged offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, contending that Singh had failed to return the painting borrowed in April 2014 from Mahiyaria’s mother, former parliamentarian Dr. Prabha Thakur.
Background of the Case
The complainant, an art collector and proprietor of Art Sanatan, stated that in April 2014, Bhanwar Jitendra Singh approached his mother, Dr. Thakur, at her government residence to borrow a painting by M.F. Husain that she had purchased from Gallery Sachi, Mumbai, for ₹22,50,000. The request was made under the pretext of showing the painting to his wife, who was said to be an admirer of the artist’s works, and to consider purchasing it.
According to the complaint, although Dr. Thakur acceded to Singh’s request and lent the painting after informing him that its valuation exceeded ₹1 crore, Singh subsequently failed to return it. Despite repeated oral and written requests, he allegedly gave false assurances, citing that the painting was in Alwar, Rajasthan, and even offered Bundi miniature paintings as a substitute in 2017. However, he never fulfilled that promise. The complaint further noted that in July 2018, during a train journey on the Shatabdi Express, Dr. Thakur personally asked Singh to return the painting, but he bluntly refused. Several SMS messages requesting the return of the artwork were sent to him, followed by a legal notice dated August 2, 2019, which went unanswered.
Arguments and Trial Court’s Findings
The ACJM had dismissed the complaint, holding that the material placed on record did not disclose sufficient grounds to proceed. The Magistrate relied upon one particular SMS message sent by Dr. Thakur, interpreting it as a reference to the painting being gifted to the accused. Aggrieved by this finding, the complainant approached the Revisional Court under Section 440 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending that the Trial Court had misread the evidence and ignored crucial messages that established ownership and entrustment. It was further argued that the Trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction by evaluating evidence at the pre-summoning stage instead of merely determining whether a prima facie case existed.
On the other hand, the respondent argued that the dispute was civil in nature, that the complaint was filed after an unexplained delay of more than five years, and that the allegations were politically motivated. The respondent’s counsel also asserted that there was no proof of delivery of the painting and that the documents relied upon lacked proper certification.
Court’s Observations
Judge Jitendra Singh observed that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC (now Section 440 BNSS) is limited to ensuring the legality and propriety of lower court proceedings. However, he found that the Trial Court had selectively relied on one SMS while ignoring the complete chain of communications that clearly showed Dr. Thakur’s repeated requests for the return of the painting. Referring to the sequence of messages, the Court held that the complainant’s mother was continuously asserting ownership and demanding restitution. The judge noted that the portion relied upon by the ACJM—“My son can’t afford to gift you, so please return his painting”—in fact negated the notion of any gift and reaffirmed the complainant’s ownership.
The Court clarified that while cheating under Section 420 IPC was not made out, since there was no dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction, the conduct of the accused after lawful entrustment constituted criminal breach of trust. The judge observed: “The subsequent conduct of the respondent no. 2, in failing to return the painting despite repeated oral and written requests, offering false assurances, and ultimately refusing to return the same, unmistakably reflects dishonest retention and misappropriation of entrusted property, thereby fulfilling the ingredients of criminal breach of trust within the meaning of Section 406 IPC.” The Court also dismissed the argument of delay, holding that the specific refusal to return the painting occurred in July 2018, thereby bringing the December 2019 complaint within the statutory limitation period.
Conclusion
Setting aside the ACJM’s order, the Special Judge concluded that there were sufficient grounds to proceed against Bhanwar Jitendra Singh under Section 406 IPC for criminal breach of trust. The Court directed that the case be remitted to the Trial Court for further proceedings in accordance with law. Both the complainant and the respondent were directed to appear before the Trial Court on November 25, 2025, for the next hearing.
Ultimately, the Court’s ruling reinstates the complaint and orders prosecution against the Congress leader for the alleged dishonest misappropriation of the MF Husain painting entrusted to him in 2014.
Cause Title: Sh. Rohit Singh Mahiyaria V. State of N.C.T. of Delhi & Anr.
Case No: Criminal Revision Petition No. 24/2025
Coram: Shri. Jitendra Singh
