The Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR registered against Swedish nationals under Section 498A by a woman while stating that the impugned FIR is without jurisdiction, unlawful, malafide, malicious and an evident act of personal vengeance and grudge.
A single-judge bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has said that
“the malafides and malice apparent in the present FIR further borne from the facts that despite the parties having duly divorced, the FIR is conspicuously silent in failing to disclose and reveal that a decree of divorce had been granted by the competent Swedish Divorce Court.”
The Court noted that the only and sole incident attributed to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court pertains to alleged jewellery and stridhan being retained by the petitioner no. 2/ mother-in-law at New Delhi in a locker maintained with HDFC Bank, New Delhi.
“This sole and isolated plea is evidently vague, ambiguous and without descriptions. It fails to specify when such stridhan was taken by the petitioner No.2 and why such a plea was not raised before the Swedish Divorce Court. The parties married in 2014 and it is for the first time in 2019 that the respondent no.2/daughter-in-law is raising such a claim. Thus, from the facts, it establishes that such plea was absolutely belated, delayed and subjected to unwarranted embellishment and exaggeration’s,”
-noted by the Court in its order.
The Court’s decision came on a plea filed by Sweden Nationals which sought quashing of FIR registered against them in New Delhi, under section 498A by their daughter-in-law, after successfully getting a decree of divorce from the Swedish Divorce Court.
Petitioner no.1 & 2, (father and mother) contended that after the marriage their son (petitioner no.3) and daughter-in-law (respondent no.2) settled in Sweden and always lived in a separate house. Later on, she got the permanent residence status too. Soon thereafter, serious irreversible and irreconcilable differences arose in their matrimony threatening their marriage. Despite the various attempts and advice, they were unable to amicably resolve and reconcile such differences.
The Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that after the decree of divorce, there is no dispute whatsoever surviving between the petitioner No.3 and the respondent No.2. Admittedly, the marriage in question stands dissolved and all assets etc., of parties including stridhan stands divided and apportioned. Other criminal allegations leveled against the petitioners, have also been closed being without any merit. In these circumstances, the present FIR is bogus, absurd and do not require any investigation, since no grievance whatsoever arises or can arise against the petitioner. The petitioners cannot be investigated pursuant to the aforesaid FIR for reasons already disclosed and narrated above. Continuance of any purported investigation against the petitioners would be a gross abuse of the process of law and undoubtedly a travesty of justice.
The Court noted that Sections 1 and 4 of IPC read with Section 188 of Cr.P.C. make it abundantly clear that the provisions of the Code apply and extend; a) only within the territory of India; and b) to citizens of India beyond the territory of India. The provisions of IPC and Cr.P.C. thus make it unambiguously and unequivocally clear that they are inapplicable to; a) territories beyond the territory of India except and in case of Indian citizens; and b) to foreigners non-Indian citizens beyond the territory of India.
… the impugned FIR has been registered against the petitioners who are foreigners/citizens of the Country of Sweden. Thus, no criminal proceedings including the impugned FIR can be registered nor any investigation as sought to be pursued by the respondent No.1 against the petitioners”
The impugned FIR dated 27.05.2019 is evidently filed subsequent to the decree of divorce and the dismissal of appeal against the decree of divorce as an apparent act of vengeance and personal grudge, knowing the petitioners were foreigners and apprehensive of the Indian law enforcement authorities, said the Court.
Also Read: Delhi High Court quashes FIR against Swedish nationals for harassing daughter-in-law
It said,
SKT17022021CRLMM16602020-105017“Despite the respondent’s knowledge that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 never resided at the matrimonial home of the parties, false, absurd and baseless allegations have been levelled against them, again only to wreak vengeance, grudge and animosity.”