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 pertains to cruelty inflicted by a husband or his relatives. The case was against her former in-laws, who reside in Australia and Poland.

Justice Nidhi Gupta commented that the case appeared to be a mere attempt to harass and seek vengeance against the accused, who reside 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 this case, the complainant's mother-in-law, brother-in-law, and sister-in-law sought to have the First Information Report (FIR) against them, lodged in Mohali in 2012, quashed by the High Court. They also challenged the proclamation proceedings initiated by the trial court.

The couple, who married in 2007, moved to the United States shortly after. Due to marital issues, they began living separately in 2012, and their marriage was dissolved by a U.S. court in 2013. Upon returning to India, the complainant filed a complaint against her husband and in-laws (the petitioners). The petitioners argued that they had been living abroad for several years. The mother-in-law and brother-in-law stated they last visited India in 2011 and reside permanently in Australia, while the sister-in-law also visited India in 2011 and lives in Poland.

Despite their residence abroad, proclamation orders were issued in 2014. The petitioners' counsel argued that the complainant maliciously provided incorrect Indian addresses and that the investigating agency had failed to attempt service at their actual foreign addresses, as required by law.

After reviewing the arguments, the Court set aside the proclamation order, noting the investigating agency's failure to serve notices at the petitioners' foreign residences. Regarding the FIR, the Court observed that numerous cancellation reports had been filed following thorough investigations.

"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, which were 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 educational expenses.

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.