Chandigarh, July 12
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that the Bathinda police could not have registered a dowry harassment case against a family in India as the incident was alleged to have occurred in the US. The judgment is liable to change the way NRI women get cases registered against their in-laws back home, with the High Court making it clear that the police in India lacked jurisdiction to probe alleged incidents of harassment abroad.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar of the High Court also made it clear that criminal prosecution in India required sanction from the central government in cases where an alleged offence was committed outside the country in accordance with Section 188 of the CrPC.
“In order to engage an investigating agency to inquire into the alleged offence, the territorial jurisdiction must be established, failing which would render the FIR to be not maintainable,” Justice Brar asserted, while hearing a petition filed against the State of Punjab and other respondents by a husband and his family.
They were, through counsel RS Bajaj, Sidakjit Singh Bajaj and Sachin Kalia, seeking the quashing of an FIR registered in March 2020 for criminal breach of trust and subjecting a married woman to cruelty under Sections 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code at NRI police station in Bathinda district. Directions were also sought for quashing all subsequent proceedings.
The complainant’s case was that the marriage between her and the petitioner was solemnised in October 2017 according to Sikh rites and rituals. After marriage, she was taken to the US despite being told that the petitioners were Canadian residents. She was not provided with an American ID or SIM card. Subsequently, the petitioners began demanding Rs 25 lakh, while threatening to divorce her. She found out in December 2018 that her husband was looking for a bride through a portal.
Appearing on the petitioners’ behalf, RS Bajaj contended that the alleged incidents of dowry harassment had occurred in the US. As such, Bathinda police did not possess the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the present FIR.
“It is evident that criminal prosecution has been initiated by the respondent-wife in India by means of the FIR merely to satisfy her personal vendetta against the petitioners. It must be emphasised that the misuse of the same in order to badger the accused on account of the souring of relations taints the sanctity of the process, which makes it unequivocally inexcusable,” Justice Brar asserted, while quashing the FIR and the subsequent proceedings.
