Police In India Can't Take Cognizance Of Dowry Harassment Committed Abroad, Sanction U/S 188 CrPC Must: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the police in India cannot take cognizance of dowry harassment offence allegedly committed abroad.

The development came while quashing a FIR lodged against husband on allegations of harassing his wife by making dowry demands.

While noting that the incidents of harassment alleged by the wife took place in Australia, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "cognizance of the same could not have been taken by the police in India."

The Court referred to Section 177 CrPC, which states that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.

"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," the judge added.

The Court was hearing husband's and in-laws plea for quashing the FIR lodged under Sections 406,498-A, 34 of the IPC.

The couple who got married in 2016, were permanent residents of Australia. The Australian Court had granted them divorce in 2021. According to FIR, the woman was harassed by her former husband and in-laws by demanding Rs.25 lakhs in dowry.

It was alleged that while in Australia, complainant's in-laws pressurised her husband to divorce, who had broken all contact with her.

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that the alleged incidents of harassment took place in Australia and cognizance of the same could not have been taken by the Police in India.

The Court also noted, as mandated by Section 188 of the CrPC, when the alleged offence is committed outside India, criminal prosecution cannot be initiated in India without obtaining sanction from the Central government.

The Court noted that in the present case, the couple invoked jurisdiction of Australian Courts in order to obtain divorce, "however, no criminal prosecution has been initiated by respondent No.2 (wife) qua the petitioners in Australia, where the alleged incidents of harassment occurred."

Court referred to Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia vs. State of Punjab and others (2009) where Supreme Court held that when the larger part of the alleged offence has occurred abroad, criminal proceedings cannot continue in India.

Justice Brar also highlighted that, the complainant resided at her matrimonial home in India with her parents-in-law "for hardly 3-4 days, which makes allegations qua harassment for dowry against them rather unlikely."

The Court added, "the allegations levelled against the petitioner(s) do not indicate commission of an offence as defined under Section 406 of the IPC. As far as the offence defined under Section 498-A of the IPC is concerned, the allegations are far too vague and general in nature to inspire confidence."

Filing Of Cases Exclusively Motivated By Personal Spite Must Be Discourage

The Court also observed that misuse of criminal justice system in order to badger the accused on account of souring of relations must be discourgaed.

While the Courts exist to ensure vindication of justice, the crippling backlog of cases is no secret. It is in this context that the menace of initiating litigation exclusively motivated by personal spite must be strongly discouraged, the judge added.

In the light of the above, the Court quashed the FIR and the plea was accordingly disposed of.

Mr. Anil Kumar Sephia, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Abdul Aziz, Advocate for Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate for respondent No.2 (complainant).

Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG Punjab

Case Title: XXXX v. XXXC

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 243