The Supreme Court of India has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) filed under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court held that the criminal proceedings initiated by the wife were a “counterblast” to unfavourable orders in divorce and child custody cases in foreign courts and that allowing the case to proceed would be an “abuse of the process of law.”
A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra set aside the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which had earlier refused to quash the FIR, terming the plea as “premature.”
Case Background
The case involves an Australian citizen of Indian origin (the husband) and his former wife, an Austrian citizen. The couple married in Panchkula, Haryana, on November 29, 2010, and subsequently resided in Melbourne, Australia. A daughter was born to them on September 29, 2012.
According to the judgment, on June 30, 2013, the wife left the matrimonial home with their daughter and moved to her home country, Austria. Following this, the husband initiated proceedings in Austria under The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, 1980, seeking the return of his daughter to Australia.
The Austrian courts, including the District Court of Vienna Inner City, the Vienna District Civil Court, and the Supreme Court of the Republic of Austria, consistently ruled in the husband’s favour, directing the daughter to be returned to Australia. The courts rejected the wife’s arguments, finding that she had unilaterally removed the child and that her apprehensions about the child’s well-being did not meet the “standards of truly serious risks.” The Austrian Supreme Court observed that the order was for the child to return to Australia, noting that “Nothing stops her from returning to Australia with the child.”
Subsequently, the husband filed for divorce in Australia, which was granted by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia on April 1, 2016, on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
A month later, on May 4, 2016, the wife lodged a complaint with the Senior Superintendent of Police, SAS Nagar, alleging dowry demands and torture. This led to the registration of FIR No. 65 on December 7, 2016, under Section 498-A of the IPC, for alleged offences spanning from November 29, 2010, to May 4, 2016.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
The appellant-husband argued that the FIR was maliciously filed to harass him and was a retaliatory measure against the favourable court orders he had obtained in Austria and Australia. He contended that no allegations of this nature were ever raised during the extensive foreign legal proceedings.
The respondent-wife denied that the FIR was a retaliatory measure, submitting that she resorted to criminal law only after attempts at mediation failed. She argued that since India is not a signatory to the Hague Convention, the Austrian court decrees need not be considered. She further maintained that child custody is a civil matter, separate and distinct from the criminal offence of cruelty.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the general principle that High Courts should not delve into evidence at the FIR quashing stage, stated that “a mechanical approach cannot be countenanced.” The bench noted that the complaint was filed nearly three years after the couple had separated and just a month after the divorce was granted.
The Court found the timing of the complaint suspect. The judgment states, “…it certainly begs the question as to why despite having been separated from the appellant for almost three years to the date, did the respondent consider filing an application with the police at that relevant time. To entertain the possibility that the same is nothing but a counterblast to the fact that the appellant has two orders in his favour… does not appear far-fetched.”
The Court also found the wife’s conduct to be “questionable,” observing that she had not complied with the Austrian court orders to return the child to Australia. It also noted an inconsistency in her claims, pointing out that divorce papers were served on her in India, which cast doubt on her argument before the Austrian courts that the child had socially integrated there.
Furthermore, the Court pointed out that the period of alleged cruelty mentioned in the FIR extended beyond the date the marriage was legally dissolved. “We may only wonder how that can be,” the bench remarked.
Citing its recent judgment in Digambar v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reiterated that an FIR lodged as a retaliatory measure to settle scores can be quashed. It also referred to Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda v. State of Gujarat to observe that “‘cruelty’ simpliciter is not enough to constitute the offence” under Section 498-A IPC, and it must be coupled with an intention to cause grave injury or to coerce the woman or her relatives to meet unlawful demands.
Final Decision
Concluding its analysis, the Supreme Court held that the case fell under the seventh parameter laid down in the landmark case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, where criminal proceedings are “manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive.”
The Court stated, “…it can be said that if the FIR proceeds further, it would be an abuse of the process of law.”
Accordingly, the bench allowed the appeal, quashing both the FIR and the High Court judgment that had upheld it. The judges also expressed their disappointment at the failure of mediation, highlighting “the well-acknowledged ill effects of continued, strained and hostile relationship between the parents, on a young child.”
