‘Criminal law can’t preserve failed marriage’: Punjab and Haryana High Court quashes FIR against Canada-based man

Background

• Married in March 2018, the estranged wife relocated to Canada within 28 days of the marriage to live with the petitioner and his family.
• Later, the parties started living separately, and the petitioner filed a divorce petition in December 2020 before the Superior Court of Justice of Canada.

• Subsequently, the estranged wife lodged a complaint in Canada alleging assault. However, the petitioner was discharged “unconditionally” by the Canadian authorities concerned due to a lack of supporting material, and later, the divorce was granted in 2022.
• In May 2021, the complainant lodged the present FIR in India, alleging dowry demands, ill-treatment and abusive conduct from the stage of engagement through the post-marital period, including the brief duration of cohabitation in India and the subsequent stay in Canada.

Findings

• The matter at hand was found to be inextricably linked to matrimonial discord between the estranged couple.
• The allegations in the FIR appeared to stem from a marriage that had ceased to function in harmony.
• Such accusations often blur the line between “private discord and penal liability”, as personal grievances tend to overlap with criminal allegations following matrimonial breakdown.
• The specific allegations against the petitioner’s parents were found to be merely accusatory and contentious in nature, unsupported by any material.

• The complainant failed to place any evidence on record to substantiate her version, and the FIR was held to be nothing more than an “outburst arising from a matrimonial dispute”.
• Upon examination of the allegations and the material on record, no prima facie case against either the petitioner or his parents was found.
• The matrimonial relationships occupy a “sensitive social space”, and allegations of harassment within such relationships warrant “careful and empathetic” consideration.
• The larger part of the alleged offence took place in Canada; therefore, criminal proceedings cannot be continued in India.

• When the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were not made out, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law, warranting interference by the court.
• The FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom, including the look-out circular and summons issued against the petitioner, are to be quashed.

Arguments

• Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate P S Ahluwalia argued that his client has been falsely implicated in the present case.
• Ahluwalia also argued that the estranged wife stayed in India for a period of only 28 days after the marriage, and went to Canada for her studies, and his client’s family financially helped her. The petitioner later joined her on a spouse visa.
• He further claimed that the dispute arose between the spouses in Canada when the wife wanted his client to start his own business after selling his family’s agricultural land in India. Subsequently, the couple started living separately.

• Ahluwalia also claimed that his client’s family made several efforts to reconcile the matter, but had no success.
• He also mentioned that the wife filed a complaint with the police in Canada against the petitioner as a counterblast against the divorce filed by the husband, alleging domestic assault and threat.
• He further highlighted that his client had been granted an ex parte decree of divorce by the Canadian court in January 2022.
• On the contrary, advocate Ramandeep Singh Brar, appearing for the estranged wife, opposed this plea of quashing the FIR.