The Supreme Court has cautioned High Courts against summarily refusing petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, merely by relying on the contents of the FIR without considering the surrounding circumstances of its filing. The Court quashed an FIR lodged by a wife against her husband under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, finding that the FIR, filed shortly after the grant of divorce by an Australian court, was a retaliatory measure.
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra observed, “While it is true that elaborate defences and evidence brought on record is not to be considered at this stage, it is equally true that a mechanical approach cannot be countenanced. What renders a judicial mind distinct is its application to the given facts in accordance with law. Therefore, the Court ought to have appreciated, at least to some extent, the background in which the respondent filed the subject FIR.”
The Case stemmed from a matrimonial dispute between the appellant, an Australian citizen of Indian origin, and the respondent. This Austrian citizen was married to the appellant in Panchkula in 2010 and subsequently settled in Melbourne. In 2013, the respondent left the matrimonial home with the couple’s daughter and moved to Austria. Proceedings initiated under the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction culminated in Austrian courts directing her to return the child to Australia. In April 2016, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia granted a divorce in favour of the appellant.
Barely a month thereafter, in May 2016, the respondent lodged an FIR in Punjab alleging dowry harassment and cruelty throughout the duration of the marriage. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, however, declined to quash the FIR, observing that the investigation was at a nascent stage and the petition was premature.
Disagreeing with the High Court, the Apex Court noted that the FIR was lodged after a prolonged separation and immediately following adverse judicial orders against the wife. The Court held, “To entertain the possibility that the same is nothing but a counterblast to the fact that the appellant has two orders in his favour, one by the Courts in Austria ordering the respondent to bring the child back to Australia and the other, by the Courts in Australia, accepting the appellant’s prayer for grant of divorce, does not appear far-fetched.”
The Bench also highlighted inconsistencies in the allegations, including claims of cruelty extending to a period beyond the subsistence of marriage. The Court further clarified that while India is not a signatory to the Hague Convention, foreign court decrees passed by a competent jurisdiction cannot be ignored when examining the bona fides of subsequent proceedings.
Referring to its precedents in Digambar v. State of Maharashtra and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Bench concluded that the FIR was an abuse of process, while stating, “It is clear that the instant facts attract parameter 7 of those laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and as such, it can be said that if the FIR proceeds further, it would be an abuse of the process of law."
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the FIR was quashed.
Case Title: Nitin Ahluwalia Vs. State Of Punjab & Anr.
Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 187 Of 2020
Coram: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Advocate for Appellant: AOR Anupam Raina, Advs. Subash Bhat, Nikita Sharma, Lisha Chauhan, Ankur Parihar
Advocate for Respondent: AORs . Karan Sharma, Charu Mathur
Picture Source :
