An Australian Indian family dispute which spilled over across the continent into the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ended in disappointment for the allegedly victimized ex-wife. The High Court has ruled that the Indian police does not have jurisdiction to take cognizance of dowry harassment of brides / wives of Indian descent when such acts are committed overseas and NOT in India.
The former wife had registered the FIR against her former husband at Adampur police station in Jalandhar district in November 2020. The couple however are Australian residents having lived in Australia since 2016 when they got married. According to reports, the couple soon after the wedding moved to Australian where the alleged harassment began not long after.
According to the former wife, her former husband and his parents began harassing her and demanded Rs 25 lakh in dowry. When she refused, the husband and his family, petitioners in the High Court, allegedly began beating and demeaning her.
The ex-wife also claimed that her in-laws also forced her to divorce her husband in Australia. The couple were granted divorce by the Federal Circuit Court in Brisbane on March 23, 2021.
Observing that the police in India cannot take cognisance of alleged dowry harassment incidents that have taken place in Australia, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on July 5 recently quashed a First Information Report (FIR) registered against the petitioner and his parents.
The High Court also heard that while the petitioner is a permanent resident of Australia, his parents reside in India. The High Court further heard that his former wife only stayed at her matrimonial house for three to four days before she moved to Australia where the alleged dowry harassment took place, if it did.
“It transpires that the alleged incidents of harassment as alleged by respondent No.2 (wife) took place in Australia and cognisance of the same could not have been taken by the police in India,” Justice Brar said.
“…Chapter XIII of the Cr.P.C. deals with the jurisdiction of the criminal courts in inquiries and trials. Section 177 Cr.P.C. 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…,” Justice Brar added.
Offences committed outside India
Section 208 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS requires the central government’s sanction to prosecute offences committed outside India.
208. Offence committed outside India.—When an offence is committed outside India—
(a) by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere; or
(b) by a person, not being such citizen, on any ship or aircraft registered in India,
he may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been committed at any place within India at which he may be found or where the offence is registered in India:
Provided that notwithstanding anything in any of the preceding sections of this Chapter, no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that if a part of the offence is committed in India or on Indian soil, this provision will not apply.
Bound by the Supreme Court of India decision in Sartaj Khan v State of Uttarakhand, ruling that if no part of the offence is committed in India, Section 208 of the BNSS (previously s 188 of the CrPC 1973) would apply, the high court found that the present case was squarely covered by the ruling and thus quashed the FIR.
To the utmost ire of the High Court, it found NO mention of such dowry harassment in the Australian divorce and custody proceedings when it examined the court documents filed by both sides in Australian courts. The Punjab and Haryana high court found the FIR and action in India to be misuse of the justice system.
“it is evident that criminal prosecution has been initiated by wife in India, by means of FIR (supra), merely to satisfy her personal vendetta against the petitioners. The inviolably sacrosanct process of law exists to provide a grievance redressal mechanism to the aggrieved party, which is also instrumental in reposing the faith and trust of the society in the criminal justice system. However, it must be emphasised that the misuse of the same in order to badger the accused on account of souring of relations taints the sanctity of the process, which makes it unequivocally inexcusable,” the high court bench asserted.
Further asserting that “while the courts exist to ensure vindication of justice, the crippling backlog of cases is no secret”, the bench said that “the menace of initiating litigation exclusively motivated by personal spite must be strongly discouraged.”