Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed under Section 4821 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) seeking to quash FIR dated 28-02-2019, registered under Sections 498-A2, 4063 of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), Harpreet Singh Brar, J., stated that just like in the present case, often, the couple involved had already obtained a divorce and settled their issues. However, merely for harassment, criminal complaints were filed in India. When the matrimonial disputes were settled by the forum concerned abroad, proxy litigation in India could not be allowed to be commenced in India to satisfy personal spite. The Court strongly condemned such unscrupulous and unethical practice and was of the stern opinion that the stream of justice must not be allowed to be clogged by ill-intended, vexatious proceedings which further burdened the already overworked Courts.
The Court stated that the sanctity of the judicial process could not be allowed to be smeared by letting ill-intentioned, resentful litigants to use it as an instrument of oppression. Thus, the Court quashed the FIR registered under Sections 498-A, 406 of IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
Background
On 16-01-2011, the marriage between Petitioner 1 (‘husband’) and the wife was solemnized, and two children were born from the wedlock. Soon after marriage, husband’s mother started taunting his wife on call, from Australia, in lieu of dowry. Instigated by the same, the husband started harassing her and demanded Rs.10,00,000 and a car.
It was contended that the wife moved to Australia, after seven months of marriage and the expenses for the same were borne by her father. The petitioners continued harassing her there and demanded Rs.10,00,000. The husband’s maternal uncle, who was also the mediator for the match, told Respondent 2 (‘wife’s father’) that the only way to settle his daughter would be to satisfy the demands of the petitioners. Accordingly, the wife’s father gave her husband an unnamed cheque for Rs.9,00,000 and Rs.1,00,000 in cash. He also took the power of attorney from the wife and released two FDRs of Rs. 5,00,000 and Rs. 4,00,000 respectively. Despite this, on 29-11-2017, the wife was shunned out of her matrimonial home in Australia.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court observed that in the present case, both husband and wife, were Australian citizens. The wife filed for divorce before the Court concerned in Melbourne, which was allowed, and it was also decreed that the divorce between the parties would take effect from 22-06-2019. The Court further observed that thereafter, the court concerned in Melbourne, passed an order to address the consequences of the breakdown of the marriage. The terms of settlement were consented by both the husband and wife. All matters pertaining to property, alimony, spousal support was already settled. Moreover, both husband and wife, released each other from all actions, proceedings, claims and other liabilities in Australia and in India.
The Court stated that despite the settlement, the wife’s father had initiated criminal prosecution against the petitioners, especially since the wife was already remarried. Further, the wife moved to Australia after seven months of the marriage and had been granted citizenship since. It was baffling that FIR propped up in India, especially considering that the wife had never pursued any criminal complaint against the petitioners in India or in Australia in eight years of marriage.
The Court observed that the occurrence in India was limited to the husband’s maternal uncle receiving an undated cheque for Rs. 9,00,000 and cash amount of Rs. 1,00,000 from the wife’s father and withdrawing money from FDRs using the general power of attorney. The husband’s maternal uncle was also roped in the present FIR since he was the only one from the husband’s immediate family who resided in India. The Court stated that all the allegations regarding harassment in lieu of dowry against the petitioners were omnibus in nature and appeared to be coloured by malicious intent.
The Court stated that the offence under Section 498-A, 406 of IPC was punishable with three years of imprisonment each, therefore as per 468(2)(b) of CrPC, the period of limitation for taking cognizance of the same would be three years. However, in the present case, the complaint was filed on 22-05-2018, and the FIR stated that the incidents of harassment started when the wife was in India, i.e. soon after marriage. The FIR was filed about 6-7 years of the alleged occurrence. Thus, the Court concerned would be barred from taking cognizance of the present matter as the prosecution was instituted beyond the period of limitation.
The Court stated that of late, it had observed a disturbing trend where criminal prosecution was initiated in matrimonial disputes in India by foreign nationals, who had voluntarily availed citizenship of another country and were in continuous residence there. In doing so, they have submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of foreign Courts of the competent jurisdiction.
The Court stated that just like in the present case, often, the couple involved had already obtained a divorce and settled issues pertaining to spousal support, custody of children. However, merely for harassment criminal complaints were filed in India. When the matrimonial disputes were settled by the forum concerned abroad, proxy litigation in India could not be allowed to be commenced in India to satisfy personal spite. The Court strongly condemned such unscrupulous and unethical practice and was of the stern opinion that the stream of justice must not be allowed to be clogged by ill-intended, vexatious proceedings which further burdened the already overworked Courts.
The Court stated that the odious act of initiating criminal prosecution to harass hapless relatives residing in India was clearly an atrocious abuse of the process of law, which could not go unchecked. The sanctity of the judicial process could not be allowed to be smeared by letting ill-intentioned, resentful litigants to use it as an instrument of oppression. Thus, the Court quashed the FIR registered under Sections 498-A, 406 of IPC and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
[X v. State of Punjab, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 14236, decided on 05-12-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Vijay Lath, Advocate and Naveen Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab and Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab; Mehtab Singh Khaira, Advocate.
1. Corresponding Section 528 of Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
2. Corresponding Section 85 of Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’)
3. Corresponding Section 316(2) of BNS
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
