whether the criminal complaint under sec.498A read with sec.3 and 4 of DP Act is maintainable after taking divorce on selfserved statement of wife ? – 2019 APEX COURT DIGEST -VOL-1


  1. Sec.482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of the complaint filed by Miss Swati Tyagi for the offences under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. – High court dismissed – The Criminal Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 9918 of 2010 is by parents-in-law of Miss Swati Tyagi, whereas Criminal Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2061 of 2011 is on behalf of the husband.- The wife was residing at Noida at the time of marriage, whereas her in-laws were residing in Hyderabad and husband in USA. Soon after marriage, the husband and wife left for USA where the husband was working. – The grievance of the wife is that the appellants, parents-in-law instigated her husband to handover her share of paternal gift/money to them. The money is in a Bank account held jointly by her with her sister who is also married and settled in USA. Further grievance is that the husband was asking her to pay the cost of her education either from her sister in USA or from her parents in India. The complaint was lodged on 13.01.2006, when she was supposed to fly back to USA on 14.01.2006. –

Apex court held that As per the facts on record, the marriage between parties stands dissolved on 08.06.2010 by a decree of divorce by the US Court. The appellants have sought quashing of the FIR No. 06/06 on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction and that no offence as alleged is disclosed from reading of the FIR, even if, the entire allegations are deemed to be correct. We find that continuation of the proceedings arising out of First Information Report is abuse of process of Court. The complaint was lodged on 13.01.2006 and thereafter, the parties have dissolved their marriage. Therefore, we find that the proceedings on the basis self-serving statement of the complainant of alleged instigation by the parents-in-law through their son in USA is too remote a circumstance which will justify the continuance of criminal proceedings against the appellants. Consequently, we allow the present appeals, quash the FIR No.

06/06 and all consequent proceedings taken in pursuance of the said

FIR. The appeals stand allowed accordingly.