Punjab and Haryana High Court Dismisses Section 498A Case Against NRI In-Laws

The in-laws told the Court that they have been living abroad for many years and hadn’t visited India since 2011.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently dismissed a criminal case filed by a woman under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with cruelty by a husband or his relatives, against her former in-laws who reside in Australia and Poland.

Justice Nidhi Gupta stated that the case appeared to be an attempt to harass and seek revenge against the accused living overseas.

“Only vague, general, and omnibus allegations have been made by the complainant against all the accused in an attempt to rope in the entire family of the husband in criminal proceedings. There are no specific dates, times, and places of incidents mentioned. Even the said demands of dowry were not made in the presence of anyone else except the complainant. Thus, only general allegations have been made. Even otherwise, the said allegations do not stand scrutiny being contrary to the established facts on record,” the Court said.

In this case, the complainant’s mother-in-law, brother-in-law, and sister-in-law had petitioned the High Court to quash the First Information Report (FIR) filed against them in Mohali in 2012. They also challenged the proclamation proceedings initiated by the trial court.

The complainant and her husband, who married in 2007, moved to the United States shortly after their marriage. Due to marital issues, they began living separately in 2012. After returning to India, the complainant filed a complaint against her husband and her in-laws (the current petitioners). Their marriage was officially dissolved by a US court in 2013.

Challenging the proceedings against them in India, the in-laws told the Court that they had been living abroad for many years.

The complainant’s mother-in-law and brother-in-law said they last visited India in 2011 and now live permanently in Australia, while the sister-in-law also visited India in 2011 and now lives in Poland.

The Court was told that proclamation orders were issued in 2014, even though they had been living abroad. Their lawyer argued that the complainant, knowing they did not live in India, provided Indian addresses to harm them.

The lawyer also argued that the investigating agency had not tried to serve them at their foreign addresses, as required by law.

After hearing the arguments, the Court canceled the proclamation order, noting that the agency failed to serve notices to the petitioners at their foreign addresses.

With regard to the FIR, the Court found that cancellation reports had been filed numerous times in the present case, after thorough investigation.

“Admittedly, the complainant has been living separately from her husband since 05.01.2012. However, present FIR came to be filed almost one year thereafter on 27.12.2012. There is no explanation for the said delay,” it noted.

The Court also considered the incriminating findings from the Loudoun County Circuit Court in Virginia, USA, regarding the complainant. These findings included issues related to the complainant’s mental illness, contempt of court, child abduction, fleeing to India with marital property, and receiving $18,000 from her husband for her studies.

“All of the above findings, lay bare the falsehood of the allegations made by the complainant in the FIR,” Justice Gupta said while quashing the FIR.

Senior Advocate RS Bains and advocates Amar Jeet and Shakti Mehta appeared for the petitioners.

Additional Advocate General (AAG) Aakanksha Gupta appeared for the State.

Advocate Bhupinder Ghai appeared for the complainant.