Punjab and Haryana High Court quashes Section 498A case against NRI in-laws

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently quashed a criminal case lodged by a woman under Section 498A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against her former in-laws, who are based in Australia and Poland. .Justice Nidhi Gupta said the case was only an attempt to harass and wreak vengeance upon the accused living abroad. “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 the present case, the mother-in- law, the brother-in-law and the sister-in-law of the complainant woman had moved the High Court for quashing the First Information Report (FIR) lodged against them in Mohali in 2012.They also challenged the proclamation proceedings initiated against them by the trial court.In the present case, the couple, the complainant and her husband, had married in 2007 and soon thereafter moved to the United States. However, due to marital discord, they started living separately in 2012. On her return to India, the complainant filed a complaint against her husband the in-laws (present petitioners). The couple's marriage was dissolved by a US Court in 2013. .Challenging the proceedings pending against them in India, the in-laws told the Court that they had been living abroad for many years. While the complainant's mother-in-law and brother-in-law said they had last visited India in 2011 and are permanently living in Australia, the sister-in-law said she also had visited India in 2011 and is living in Poland. The orders of proclamation were issued in 2014 despite the fact that they have been living abroad, the Court was told.Their counsel submitted that despite knowing well that they do not reside in India, the complainant maliciously provided Indian addresses with an ulterior motive. It was also argued that the investigating agency had made no effort to serve them at their foreign addresses as required by law..After hearing the counsel, the Court set aside the proclamation order, noting that the investigating agency failed to serve notices to the petitioners at their foreign residence.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..It also took into the account the incriminating findings of the Loudoun County Circuit Court in Virginia, USA, against the complainant. These findings 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 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.