In Quashing Petitions, High Court Should Also Appreciate Background In Which FIR Was Filed: Supreme Court Quashes FIR U/S.498A IPC Against NRI Husband

The Apex Court was hearing an appeal filed against an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had dismissed a plea seeking the quashing of an FIR.

A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court, observing that the complaint appeared to have been filed as a retaliation to the decrees passed in Austria and Australia in favour of the appellant. The Court remarked that “while it is true that elaborate defences and evidence brought on record is not to be considered at this stage, it is equally true that a mechanical approach cannot be countenanced."

Advocate Subash Bhat appeared for the appellant. Advocate Karan Sharma represented the respondents.

Background

The marriage between the parties was solemnised in India in 2010 as per Hindu rites and rituals. A daughter was born out of this wedlock in 2012. In 2013, the wife left for Austria with the child and continued to reside there.

Proceedings for the return of the child were initiated in Austria, where the courts directed the wife to return the child to Australia. Her appeals were dismissed, and enforcement proceedings were initiated. In 2016, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia granted a divorce to the appellant on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

A month later, the wife filed a complaint in India alleging cruelty and dowry harassment, leading to registration of the FIR under Section 498-A IPC.

The appellant approached the Punjab & Haryana High Court, praying that the FIR be quashed, but the petition was dismissed as premature, which led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined the sequence of events and observed that the complaint could not have been assessed in isolation from the ongoing matrimonial disputes between the parties. Highlighting this aspect, the Court remarked that “to entertain the possibility that the same is nothing but a counterblast to the fact that the appellant has two orders in his favour, one by the Courts in Austria ordering the respondent to bring the child back to Australia and the other, by the Courts in Australia, accepting the appellant’s prayer for grant of divorce, does not appear far-fetched.”

The Bench observed that while, in isolation, the approach adopted by the High Court in allowing the complaint to proceed appeared consistent with settled law, the circumstances of the case required closer scrutiny. The Bench noted that “if the complaint is seen in isolation, then the approach of the learned Single Judge appears, entirely to be in consonance with the established position of law – allegations have been made, and so they have to be investigated."

The Bench, however, cautioned that such matters were “not as straight-cut as that,” and remarked that “…what renders a judicial mind distinct is its application to the given facts in accordance with law.” The Court stressed that the background in which the FIR was filed ought to have been taken into account.

The Apex Court also noted that despite the Austrian court orders, the wife had not returned the child to Australia. Here allegation that the husband may abduct the child was rejected, as Austrian courts had held that she herself had unilaterally removed the child.

The Court further observed that the FIR did not disclose material particulars which could substantiate the allegations. It was further noted that the complaint was filed long after the parties had been living separately and after decrees of divorce and custody had gone against the wife.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court addressed the argument that India is not a signatory to the Hague Convention of 1980, which deals with international child abduction and custody disputes. The Bench observed that “while it may be true that India is not a signatory to the Hague Convention, 1980 and that the criterion may allegedly differ, it does not give us reason to interfere with orders passed by Courts of competent jurisdiction in other countries.”

The Bench also drew reference to recent precedents while examining the allegations in the present case. It was noted that in Digambar v. State of Maharashtra, proceedings had been quashed after observing that the FIR was lodged only after a divorce notice was sent, thereby amounting to a retaliatory measure.

Conclusion

Concluding that allowing the proceedings would amount to abuse of process, the Bench observed that“…it is clear that the instant facts attract parameter 7 of those laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and as such, it can be said that if the FIR proceeds further, it would be an abuse of the process of law."

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court quashed the FIR and set aside the order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court.

Cause Title: XYZ Vs The State Of Punjab & Anr (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1128)

Appearances

Petitioner: Advocates Subash Bhat, Nikita Sharma, Ankur Parihar

Respondents: Advocate Karan Sharma, AOR with Advocate Charu Mathur, AOR

Click here to read/download Judgment