Punjab & Haryana High Court Imposes 50K Cost On Woman For 'Harassing' Estranged Husband By Filing Complaint After Mutual Divorce

Observing that the surreptitious attempt "needs to be curbed with iron an iron hand", the Punjab & Haryana High Court has imposed a cost of Rs.50,000 on a woman for harassing her former husband by filing a complaint "to seek personal vengeance" that divorce by mutual consent was obtained by fraud.

Justice Sumeet Goel said, "The inevitable conclusion that emerges is that the impugned criminal complaint is nothing but aimed at harassing and wreaking vengeance upon the petitioner by the respondent (herein) – complainant. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings qua the impugned criminal complaint would amount to sheer harassment of the petitioner and hence the same deserves to be quashed. the filing of the criminal complaint by the respondent (herein) complainant reflects abuse nay gross abuse of process of law and Courts at her instance on account of the nature of allegations made as also lack of territorial jurisdiction."

"Unscrupulous litigants should not be allowed to go scot free & they should be put to strict terms and conditions including costs," the Court added.

The judge further added that It is high time to check, with firmness, any such endeavour laced with concealment, falsehood and forum hunting.

This principle applies, with more vigour, to a litigant who chooses to pursue criminal prosecution with a quest to abuse the process of law/Courts, with a motive to seek personal vengeance, rather than seeking justice. Such surreptitious attempt(s) needs to be, indubitably, curbed with an iron hand, said the Court.

Background

The petition was filed by a man for quashing a criminal complaint filed by his former wife alleging that he had obtained divorce by mutual consent by committing fraud in Uttarakhand.

The woman also submitted in the complaint that the petitioner had cheated her by obtaining the decree of mutual consent divorce without paying any permanent alimony and even after the divorce, on false pretext of marriage indulged in physical relations with her.

The plea also challenged the summoning order passed by the magistrate in Ludhiana in the fraud case under Section 420 IPC registered against the petitioner.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent-complainant was dissolved in 2014 by a decree passed by the Family Court, Roorkee (Uttarakhand) and the same was challenged twice by way of filing applications before the said Family Court which resulted in dismissal.

Even an appeal filed by the respondent-complainant before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital was withdrawn. 

Court's Decision

After hearing the submissions, the Court considered the question, "whether it is mandatory for a Magisterial Court to comply with the provisions of Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C. when considering a criminal complaint pending adjudication before it."

Answering the issue, the Judge said, "In a criminal complaint, in case there are multiple accused sought to be summoned, the mandatory provision of Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C. will be required to be adhered to even if one of such accused is reflected to be residing outside the area jurisdiction of such Magistrate."

The Court also summarised the principles including the following:

I. The procedure provided for in Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C.; wherein an accused is residing beyond the jurisdictional area of the concerned Magisterial Court; is mandatory in nature.

II. Even if one of the accused/respondents in the criminal complaint is residing beyond the jurisdictional area of the concerned Magisterial Court, the said Magistrate is required to follow the mandate contained in Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C.

III. The concerned Magistrate has wide discretion to either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a Police Officer or by such other person as such Magistrate thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of a given case.

IV. In case the High Court/Sessions Court arrive at the conclusion that the summoning order suffers from the vice of non-compliance of Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C. on account of the Magistrate not having carried out requisite inquiry etc. (in case of any accused living beyond the area jurisdiction of such Magistrate), it is only the summoning order which is required to be quashed/set-aside and the matter ought to be remitted back to the said Magisterial Court for taking the fresh decision upon the aspect of summoning after complying with the provision of Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C. In other words, a criminal complaint cannot be quashed/rejected only on account of summoning order suffering from such lapse.

In the present case, the Court noted that the criminal complaint filed before the JMIC, Ludhiana, Punjab reflects that all the respondents-accused are residents of District Haridwar and District Dehradun in the State of Uttarakhand.

"The indubitable conclusion thus, is that all the respondents (therein) sought to be got summoned as an accused are residents of a place beyond the jurisdiction of the Magisterial Court wherein the complaint was filed," the Court observed.

Perusing the summoning order, the bench opined that it "does not reflect in any manner whatsoever, that the mandatory provision as contained in Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C. was followed by the Magisterial Court especially in view of the fact that all the respondents (therein) including the petitioner (herein) were residents of District Haridwar and District Dehradun in the State of Uttarakhand which places are beyond the jurisdictional area of the Magisterial Court which has passed the summoning order. In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned summoning order deserves to be quashed on this score alone."

Adding that the alleged fraud was committed in Uttarakhand, the Court said that in the factual matrix of the dispute, it was inexplicable as to how any offence was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Ludhiana, Punjab.

The Court also noted that two successive applications for setting aside the divorce decree had been rejected by the family court and even the appeal filed before the Uttarakhand High Court was withdrawn.

Justice Goel highlighted, "the liberty reserved in favour of the respondent - complainant by the Hon'ble Uttarakhand High Court to take recourse in law (if advised) can, by no stretch of legal imagination, be construed as granting permission to file the impugned criminal complaint.”

Consequently, the Court opined that the continuation of the proceedings in the impugned criminal complaint would amount to sheer harassment of the petitioner and hence the same deserved to be quashed.

Mr. P.K. Dwivedi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. G.B.S. Gill, Advocate for Mr. Shilesh Gupta, Advocate for the respondent.

Title: XXX v. XXX

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 176