“Dishonest Retention” of M.F. Husain Painting: Delhi Court Reopens Case Against Ex-MP Bhanwar Jitendra Singh

Special Judge Jitendra Singh of Rouse Avenue Court held that the materials on record disclosed sufficient grounds to proceed against the former parliamentarian for the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The revision petition, filed under Section 440 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 by complainant Mahiyaria, challenged the order dated March 21, 2025, by the ACJM, which had dismissed his complaint at the pre-summoning stage. The complaint alleged that Singh had borrowed a painting by M.F. Husain in April 2014 and failed to return it despite repeated requests.

According to the complainant, his mother, Dr. Prabha Thakur; a former Member of Parliament, had purchased the Husain painting, depicting Lord Ganesha, for ₹22.5 lakh from a Mumbai gallery in 2013 and later gifted it to him. In April 2014, Singh allegedly visited Dr. Thakur’s government residence in Delhi and requested to borrow the painting to show it to his wife, who admired Husain’s work and was considering purchasing it.

Trusting the former MP, Dr. Thakur lent him the artwork, valued at over ₹1 crore. However, despite repeated requests over several years, Singh allegedly failed to return the painting, at times claiming it was in Alwar, Rajasthan, and later offering Bundi miniature paintings in lieu of it. In July 2018, during a chance meeting on the Shatabdi Express, Singh allegedly refused outright to return the painting, telling Dr. Thakur to “forget about it.”

Following unacknowledged messages and an unanswered legal notice issued in August 2019, Mahiyaria filed a private criminal complaint alleging offences under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) of the IPC.

The trial court had dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, holding that the essential ingredients of cheating and criminal misappropriation were not made out. It relied on a single SMS sent by Dr. Thakur in 2018, which mentioned, “My son can’t afford to gift you, so please return his painting,” to infer that the artwork may have been gifted.

However, the revisional court disagreed, noting that the magistrate had selectively relied on one message while ignoring several preceding texts that clearly indicated persistent requests for return of the painting.

“When the entire sequence of communications is read conjointly, the inference drawn by the trial court that the painting was gifted to the respondent is manifestly unsustainable,” the Court observed, emphasizing that the messages collectively showed the complainant’s ownership and repeated demands for restitution.

The Court found that while cheating under Section 420 IPC was not made out, since the entrustment was initially voluntary, the subsequent conduct of the accused amounted to dishonest misappropriation.

“The painting was entrusted to the respondent only for a limited purpose, namely, to show it to his wife and to consider its purchase. The subsequent conduct of the respondent, 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,” the order stated.

Rejecting the respondent’s plea that the dispute was purely civil in nature, the Court clarified that the allegations, if taken at face value, disclosed the commission of a cognizable criminal offence. It also rejected the contention that the complaint was time-barred, noting that the alleged refusal to return the painting occurred in July 2018, and the complaint filed in December 2019 was within the limitation period prescribed under Section 468 CrPC.

Concluding that the trial court had erred in law and on facts, the Court set aside the dismissal order and directed the lower court to summon Bhanwar Jitendra Singh and proceed in accordance with law. “The material available on record prima facie discloses sufficient grounds to proceed against respondent no. 2 for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC,” the Court held, restoring the complaint to the trial court’s file.