Twitter
Advertisement

Delhi high court cites jurisdiction, drops dowry case against in-laws

The Delhi high court has pulled up a girl for harassing her elderly in-laws in a dowry case in India even though she is a US citizen and the offence was supposedly committed there.

Latest News
article-main
FacebookTwitterWhatsappLinkedin

The Delhi high court has pulled up a girl for harassing her elderly in-laws in a dowry case in India even though she is a US citizen and the offence was supposedly committed there. The court also quashed an FIR against the in-laws, saying it has no jurisdiction to hear the case.

Justice SN Dhingra quashed the FIR against Sanjeev Majoo, his parents and brother under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) saying, “It is apparent that the complainant, a citizen of USA, had all along lived in USA with her son and husband, away from her in-laws but filed this FIR against her mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law and husband to use the criminal justice system as a tool of vengeance.”

“The complainant and her husband had lived in USA and all allegations of cruelty are in USA. No offence was committed within the jurisdiction of this country. Thus, no offence could have been registered against any of the petitioners/ accused persons under Section 498A or 406 IPC in India,” the court said, while allowing of the petition of the Majoo family.

“All persons who commit crimes in India can be tried here whether they are foreigners or Indians, but the IPC debars the scope of applicability of territorial jurisdiction to Indian courts to try a case, cause of action of which had taken place outside the geographical limits in respect of Indian citizens,” the court observed.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by Sanjeev, accusing his wife Ruchi of slapping false cases against them. The couple got married in December 1996 at Delhi. Since they had US citizenship, they went back to that country after marriage and had a son.

But things started turning sour soon after and they got into a legal battle. In 2009, Ruchi registered a case against Sanjeev and his family. After going through her statement in the California court, the HC judge said, “It is apparent her in-laws had no say in their married life. In California, she said all her jewellery was in her US house. However, in the FIR, she suddenly discovered that she had a locker in Udaipur. But, she did not disclose the locker number and what jewellery was in it.”

“Even if it is believed that her in-laws had said that dowry must be commensurate with status, Ruchi had at first not accused them of making this demand. Besides, she was at liberty to get a case registered under Dowry Prohibition Act, but she did not do so.

Therefore, no offence under Section 498A IPC was made out against her in-laws on the basis of her allegations in the FIR even if every allegation is considered true,” the court said.

Find your daily dose of news & explainers in your WhatsApp. Stay updated, Stay informed-  Follow DNA on WhatsApp.
Advertisement

Live tv

Advertisement
Advertisement