Punjab and Haryana High Court imposes ₹50k fine on woman for 'wreaking vengeance' upon ex-husband

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently imposed costs of ₹50,000 on a woman for filing a criminal complaint against her former husband alleging that he had fraudulently obtained divorce by mutual consent..Justice Sumeet Goel said that the complaint was aimed at harassing and “wreaking vengeance” upon the man, as the entire matter had been decided against her by a family court and the Uttarakhand High Court.“The filing of the criminal complaint by the respondent (herein) complainant reflects abuse nay gross abuse of process of law and Courts at her instance on account of the nature of allegations made as also lack of territorial jurisdiction,” the Court said.It added that such surreptitious attempts must be curbed with an iron hand. “The respondent (herein) - complainant deserves to be saddled with costs, which ought to be veritable and real time in nature.".The couple had married in Ludhiana in 2003 and had two children. In September 2014, their marriage was dissolved by a family court in Roorkee. However, the woman later alleged that the divorce was obtained on account of fraud. She filed applications before the family court to set aside the divorce decree, but the same were rejected. She appealed before the Uttarakhand High Court as well, but later withdrew her case with liberty to pursue other remedies. .In her complaint moved before a Punjab court in 2016, she alleged that the man had cheated her by obtaining the decree of mutual consent divorce without paying any permanent alimony. It was also alleged that even after the divorce, the man gave her false promises and indulged in physical relations with her. The magistrate summoned the man under Section 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code in June 2017. This led to the instant petition before the High Court. .The Court firstly considered whether the summoning order was passed in accordance with the procedure under Section 202(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).The provision states that the magistrate has to postpone the issue of process against proposed accused if he is residing at a place beyond the court’s jurisdiction, and first hold an inquiry or direct investigation on whether there exists sufficient ground for going ahead with proceedings.Justice Goel said on this aspect,“In a criminal complaint, in case there are multiple accused sought to be summoned, the mandatory provision of Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C. will be required to be adhered to even if one of such accused is reflected to be residing outside the area jurisdiction of such Magistrate.".The Court found that all the accused in the complaint filed before the Ludhiana court are residents of Haridwar and Dehradun. It noted that the summoning order does not reflect the mandatory procedure to be followed by the magisterial court. The Court also questioned how the magistrate had concluded that the offence had taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of Ludhiana..On merits, the Court noted that two successive applications for setting aside the divorce decree had been rejected by the family court and even the appeal filed before the Uttarakhand High Court was withdrawn. “The liberty reserved in favour of the respondent - complainant by the Hon’ble Uttarakhand High Court to take recourse in law (if advised) can, by no stretch of legal imagination, be construed as granting permission to file the impugned criminal complaint,” it said..Concluding that this was an abuse of process of law, the Court quashed the complaint as well as the summoning order and all connected proceedings.“The respondent (herein) – complainant is saddled with costs Rs.50,000/- which shall be deposited by her with trial Court within eight weeks from today,” the order stated..Advocate PK Dwivedi represented the petitioner.Advocates GBS Gill and Shilesh Gupta represented the complainant.