The Supreme Court has quashed a criminal case under Sections 498A and 406 IPC against an Australian citizen, holding that the Punjab and Haryana High Court erred in refusing relief solely because he had travelled abroad without prior court permission while on anticipatory bail.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh was hearing an appeal against a Punjab and Haryana High Court order which had quashed the FIR against the appellant’s mother and sisters but declined similar relief to the husband.
The case arose from a marriage solemnised in Chandigarh in April 2018. Following the wedding, the couple moved to Australia, where matrimonial disputes arose and domestic violence proceedings were initiated. Their marriage was dissolved by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia in September 2019 on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, a decree accepted by both parties. The former wife subsequently remarried in 2020 and settled abroad.
However, in April 2022 nearly three years after the divorce, the former wife’s father lodged an FIR in Chandigarh alleging cruelty and dowry harassment against the husband and his family members.
The High Court had found the allegations against the husband’s family members vague and omnibus, quashing proceedings against them. But it denied relief to the husband on the ground that he had allegedly misused the concession of anticipatory bail by travelling to Australia in January 2025 without obtaining prior permission from the trial court.
Setting aside that reasoning, the Supreme Court held that the issue of foreign travel could at best relate to compliance with bail conditions and could not, by itself, justify continuation of criminal proceedings that otherwise appeared legally unsustainable.
The Bench noted that the alleged incidents forming the basis of the FIR occurred in Australia, the marriage had already been dissolved in 2019, both parties had moved on with their lives, and the former wife had remarried before the FIR was lodged. It also found it significant that the complaint was filed not by the former wife herself, but by her father, despite no indication that she was incapacitated from pursuing legal remedies herself.
In the totality of circumstances, the Court held that continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of process and appeared ex facie tainted by mala fides. Accordingly, it quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings against the appellant.
