***

MANDEEP PANNU, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 34 dated 15.10.2021, registered under Sections 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station NRI, District Police Commissionerate, Amritsar, along with all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Briefly stated, the allegations in the FIR arise out of a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 2. As per the complaint submitted by respondent No. 2 to the NRI Wing, she had gone to Canada in September, 2018 for higher studies. Thereafter, the marriage between the parties was solemnized in the year 2020, after which they started residing together in Canada. It is alleged that her parents spent more than ?10 lakhs on the marriage and also gave cash, jewellery and other articles. However, soon after the marriage, the petitioner and his family members allegedly started subjecting her to cruelty and harassment and repeatedly demanded ?10 lakhs from her parental family. It is further alleged that her jewellery and other istridhan articles were retained by her in-laws.

3. It is further the case of the complainant that while the parties were residing in Canada, the petitioner continued to subject her to physical and mental cruelty. She alleged that the petitioner assaulted her, threatened her and, on one occasion, the Canadian police also reached their residence. It is further alleged that her passport, educational documents and other personal papers were withheld by the petitioner and his relatives and that she was not provided any update regarding her immigration status despite having paid money for processing her permanent residency. She also alleged that she was compelled to transfer money to the petitioner, who received more than ?6 lakhs from her while they were in Canada, and that her clothes, jewellery and other belongings continued to remain in the possession of the petitioner and his family members.

4. The complainant further alleged that after returning to India, she was again subjected to physical and mental harassment by the petitioner and his family members, who continued to pressurize her to bring money from her parental home and extended threats to her and her family members. On the basis of these allegations, the impugned FIR under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC came to be registered against the petitioner and the other accused.

5. Thereafter, an inquiry was conducted by the NRI Wing into the allegations levelled by respondent No. 2. The Inquiry Officer concluded that the petitioner had retained the istridhan (dowry articles) and documents of respondent No. 2 in his possession and had subjected her to mental cruelty. The inquiry report was forwarded through the SHO, Police Station NRI, Amritsar, with the recommendation of the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, NRI Wing, Amritsar, to the Additional Director General of Police, NRI Wing, Punjab, SAS Nagar. After obtaining the legal opinion from the District Attorney, NRI Wing, recommending registration of a criminal case, FIR No. 34 dated 15.10.2021 under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC came to be registered against the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR do not constitute the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. It has been argued that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 02.01.2020 and, thereafter, both the parties left for Canada on 12.01.2020, where they resided together. It is submitted that the petitioner did not visit India till 11.05.2023, whereas the impugned FIR came to be registered on 15.10.2021. It is further contended that no specific allegation of dowry demand, entrustment or cruelty has been attributed to the petitioner during the brief period when the parties remained in India and that the allegations, if taken at their face value, pertain predominantly to the period when the parties were residing in Canada. It has further been argued that the parties had known each other since the year 2018, the marriage was a love-cum-arranged marriage, and due to temperamental differences they started living separately in July, 2020. It is also submitted that there is an unexplained delay of about one year and three months in lodging the FIR and that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

7. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia and others versus State of Punjab and others”, 2009 (2) RCR (Criminal) 956 = (2009) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 21320, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where the parties were married at Jalandhar, thereafter shifted to Canada, and the allegations regarding demand of dowry and cruelty pertained to the period when they were residing in Canada, the FIR registered at Jalandhar was liable to be quashed, inter alia, on the ground that the larger part of the alleged offence had been committed in Canada and, therefore, the Indian courts lacked territorial jurisdiction in respect of those allegations.

8. Learned State counsel, assisted by the learned counsel for respondent No. 2, has opposed the present petition and submitted that the allegations levelled in the FIR, read as a whole, clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. It is contended that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 were in a relationship while residing in Canada and thereafter got married in India on 02.01.2020. During the marriage ceremonies, gold ornaments, jewellery and other dowry articles were entrusted to the petitioner and respondent No. 2, and documentary evidence in the form of photographs and purchase bills was produced during the inquiry. It is further submitted that during the inquiry it was found that the complainant’s gold ornaments, educational certificates, bank documents and other personal documents remained in the possession of the petitioner, who failed to return the same despite repeated demands.

9. It has further been argued that respondent No. 2 returned to India in July, 2020 on account of the illness of her father and, even thereafter, she continued to be subjected to cruelty and harassment. The inquiry conducted by the NRI Wing revealed that the petitioner had retained the complainant’s istridhan and other documents in his possession and had subjected her to mental cruelty. Consequently, the Inquiry Officer recommended registration of the FIR, which was preceded by approval from the competent authorities and a legal opinion obtained from the District Attorney, NRI Wing.

10. Learned State counsel has further submitted that after registration of the FIR, a detailed investigation was carried out during which the complainant produced photographs of the marriage, documents relating to the purchase and entrustment of gold ornaments and other supporting material. The statements of the complainant and other witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., corroborating the allegations made in the FIR. It is further submitted that a Look Out Circular was issued against the petitioner, who was residing abroad, pursuant to which he was detained at Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi, on 11.05.2023 and was arrested on 12.05.2023. However, the misappropriated gold ornaments could not be recovered from him.

11. It has also been contended that upon completion of the investigation, the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was presented before the competent Court and the case is presently pending trial before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, where charges are yet to be framed. It is, therefore, argued that the present petition raises disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of evidence, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The allegations in the FIR and the material collected during the investigation disclose the commission of cognizable offences and, therefore, no ground is made out for quashing the FIR or the consequential proceedings. The petition, thus, deserves to be dismissed.

12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

13. The principal contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that though the marriage between the parties was solemnized at Amritsar on 02.01.2020, the parties thereafter left for Canada on 12.01.2020 and resided there for the major part of their matrimonial life. It has further been contended that the allegations forming the foundation of the impugned FIR, namely, physical and mental harassment, demand of money, retention of gold ornaments and istri dhan, withholding of passport, educational certificates and immigration documents, compelling the complainant to transfer money, and other acts of cruelty, are all alleged to have taken place in Canada. Thus, according to the petitioner, the substantial and integral part of the alleged cause of action arose outside the territorial jurisdiction of India. It has also been argued that except making general and omnibus allegations, the complainant has failed to specify any definite incident of cruelty or demand of dowry alleged to have taken place in India so as to constitute the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC within the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts in India.

14. A careful reading of the impugned FIR and the material placed on record reveals that the complainant herself has narrated in detail the incidents alleged to have occurred during the parties’ stay in Canada. The allegations regarding physical assaults, mental harassment, demand of money, retention of passport and educational documents, withholding of immigration-related papers, alleged transfer of money by the complainant to the petitioner, and other acts of cruelty have predominantly been attributed to the period when the parties were residing together in Canada. Even according to the complainant, these incidents constitute the gravamen of the prosecution case. Thus, the larger and substantial part of the allegations admittedly pertains to events which allegedly occurred outside India.

15. It is true that the complainant has also made a reference to certain incidents allegedly occurring in India. However, those allegations are wholly vague and bereft of material particulars. The complainant has neither disclosed the specific dates on which she allegedly stayed in her matrimonial home in India nor the exact period of such stay. She has also failed to specify the precise dates, time or manner in which the alleged acts of cruelty or demand of dowry were committed within India. The allegations are general in nature without attributing any specific overt act constituting the ingredients of the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC during the period of her alleged stay in India. Significantly, no material has been placed on record by the complainant to prima facie substantiate her presence in India during the relevant period when such alleged incidents are stated to have occurred. In the absence of specific pleadings and supporting material, it cannot be held that any distinct offence has been disclosed to have been committed within the territory of India.

16. Another circumstance which cannot be lost sight of is that although the complainant levelled sweeping allegations against almost all the members of the petitioner’s family, including his parents and other relatives, the investigating agency, after conducting a detailed enquiry, found sufficient material only against the present petitioner and did not proceed against the remaining family members. This itself demonstrates that the allegations, as originally levelled, were not accepted in their entirety during investigation. The indiscriminate implication of several family members, coupled with the fact that the prosecution ultimately proceeded only against the husband, lends support to the contention that the allegations have been substantially exaggerated.

17. The controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Harmanpreet Singh’s case (supra), wherein the parties were married in Punjab and thereafter resided in Canada, and the allegations regarding cruelty and demand of dowry had substantially arisen during their stay in Canada. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where the larger and substantial part of the alleged offences had been committed in Canada, the registration of an FIR in Punjab could not be sustained and accordingly quashed the proceedings. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment fully applies to the facts of the present case. Here also, the marriage was solemnized in India, but the matrimonial life was primarily spent in Canada, and the principal allegations of cruelty, misappropriation and dowry demand admittedly relate to the period of residence in Canada. The allegations regarding India are vague, lacking in particulars and do not disclose any specific offence committed within India.

18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the larger and substantial part of the alleged cause of action arose in Canada and not in India. The allegations pertaining to India are omnibus, vague and devoid of necessary particulars so as to constitute the offences alleged under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC. Consequently, the continuation of the criminal proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

19. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. FIR No. 34 dated 15.10.2021 registered under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC at Police Station NRI, District Police Commissionerate, Amritsar, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, is hereby quashed qua the present petitioner, Jaskaran Singh.

20. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

Petition allowed.

********