The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed an FIR registered under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 498-A (cruelty by husband or his relatives) of the Indian Penal Code against the mother and sisters of a man, terming the registration of the case a “gross misuse of the process of law.” However, the court declined to quash the proceedings against the husband after noting that he had misused the concession of anticipatory bail.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Amarjot Bhatti in a petition filed by a man and his family members seeking the quashing of an FIR registered in April 2022 at a Women Police Station in Chandigarh.
Background of the Case
The FIR was lodged based on a complaint by the wife’s father. The complaint stated that his daughter’s marriage to the husband was arranged through a matrimonial website. At the time, the husband was residing in Sydney, Australia, and the wife was working in Doha, Qatar. The marriage was solemnized in April 2018 in Chandigarh.
According to the FIR, shortly after the marriage, the husband returned to Sydney, and the wife went to Qatar. She later joined her husband in Sydney. The complainant alleged that marital disputes arose between the couple in Sydney, primarily concerning the wife’s past relationships. The complaint detailed incidents of alleged cruelty, beatings, and demands for dowry, including a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs. It was also alleged that the husband had misappropriated money belonging to the wife.
The situation escalated, leading the wife to leave her husband’s home in Sydney with the help of her brother and Australian police. She subsequently filed a domestic violence complaint in Australia. The complainant, the wife’s father, alleged that when he contacted the husband’s family in India, they did not want to rehabilitate his daughter and abused him over the phone.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioners’ counsel argued that all allegations were false and baseless. It was contended that the entire matrimonial dispute occurred in Sydney, Australia, and had already been adjudicated by competent courts there. The marriage between the husband and wife was formally dissolved by an order of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia in September 2019. Furthermore, it was submitted that the wife has since remarried and moved on with her life. The petitioners argued that the FIR was lodged without basis, as no part of the alleged cruelty or dowry demand took place in India.
Representing the Union Territory of Chandigarh and the complainant, the opposing counsel stated that the police had conducted an inquiry after the initial complaint was filed. Although the complainant had temporarily requested the closure of the complaint due to his daughter’s inability to travel from Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic, it was later reopened. The counsel pointed out that the petitioners, specifically the mother and sisters, failed to join the investigation despite notices. A Look Out Circular (LOC) was issued for the husband, leading to his apprehension at an Indian airport. It was argued that since a challan had been presented against the female petitioners and the husband had gone back to Australia without court permission after securing anticipatory bail, the petition should be dismissed.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
After examining the facts and records, the presiding Justice observed that the core matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife took place entirely during their stay in Sydney, Australia. The court noted the undisputed facts that the couple’s marriage had been dissolved by an Australian court and that the wife had remarried in November 2020.
The court found that the allegations against the husband’s family members were vague and lacked substance. The judgment stated, “There is nothing on record to show that [the husband’s mother and sisters] ever visited matrimonial home of the couple. Therefore, there is no question of any interference on their part in the matrimonial life of the couple.”
The Justice concluded that the FIR was filed out of vengeance due to the matrimonial discord between the couple. The court held, “In-fact, registration of aforesaid FIR is result of vengeance, as the complainant’s daughter had matrimonial dispute with her husband and for this reason, the [wife’s father] filed present complaint against the husband and his family members who were residing in India.”
Finding the proceedings to be a “gross misuse of the process of law,” the court quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings, including the challan presented under Section 173 Cr.P.C., against the husband’s mother and sisters.
However, regarding the husband, the court took a different view. It was noted that he had traveled to Australia without seeking permission from the concerned court after being granted anticipatory bail. The court observed, “Therefore, [the husband] has misused the concession of anticipatory bail granted in his favour.” On this ground, the court concluded, “I do not deem it fit to quash the aforesaid FIR registered against him and petition concerning [the husband] is, accordingly, declined.”
The petition was thus partly allowed.
