The Delhi High Court has partly quashed criminal proceedings against a US-based doctor in a matrimonial dispute, holding that the allegation concerning non-return of the wife’s jewellery did not, on the facts pleaded, establish criminal breach of trust. However, the court allowed proceedings concerning alleged cruelty and harassment to continue against the husband and his relatives.
Wife Alleged Dowry Demands, Cruelty and Harassment
The case arose from a complaint filed by the doctor’s wife in 2019, alleging dowry demands, repeated insults and abuse, physical and sexual cruelty, and non-return of her jewellery. Following the complaint, police registered an FIR and filed a final report against the husband.
Justice Madhu Jain observed that the allegations, if taken at face value at the stage of considering the quashing plea, disclosed a case of alleged cruelty and harassment.
The complaint specifically referred to alleged demands for an Innova vehicle and money, payment of Rs 7 lakh to the petitioner’s brother, and an alleged demand of approximately Rs 16-17 crore for purchasing land for establishing a hospital. It also contained allegations of physical and sexual cruelty.
The High Court held that these allegations were sufficiently specific and could not be rejected at the preliminary stage. Whether the allegations are ultimately proved will be determined during the trial.
Court Examines Couple’s Marital and Legal History
The couple married in 2007 but later began living separately. The wife’s application for a spousal visa to the United States was rejected in 2010.
The husband subsequently initiated annulment proceedings in Missouri, where the marriage was annulled in 2015. He later instituted matrimonial proceedings before a Delhi family court in 2018, which were subsequently withdrawn.
The doctor approached the Delhi High Court seeking quashing of the FIR and the criminal proceedings arising from it.
The court held that the annulment order, visa records and related communications did not conclusively negate the wife’s allegations of cruelty. It also observed that cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code could constitute a continuing offence, with each alleged act potentially providing a fresh starting point for limitation.
Jewellery Allegation Did Not Establish Criminal Breach of Trust
While allowing the cruelty and harassment allegations to proceed, the High Court quashed the proceedings relating to the alleged criminal breach of trust concerning the wife’s jewellery.
According to the complaint, the jewellery had allegedly been handed over to the husband’s sister-in-law. However, there was no specific allegation establishing that the jewellery had subsequently come into the husband’s possession or control.
The court therefore held that the necessary legal basis for proceeding against the husband for criminal breach of trust in relation to the jewellery was not made out.
Remaining Proceedings to Continue
The High Court accordingly partly allowed the doctor’s plea. The criminal proceedings concerning the jewellery-related criminal breach of trust allegation were quashed, while the allegations of cruelty and harassment were allowed to continue.
The court clarified that the remaining allegations are yet to be tested during trial and that its observations at the stage of considering the quashing petition should not be treated as a final determination of guilt or innocence.
Important Highlights
- Delhi High Court partly quashed criminal proceedings against a US-based doctor in a matrimonial dispute.
- Proceedings relating to alleged cruelty and harassment were allowed to continue.
- The wife had alleged dowry demands, physical and sexual cruelty, abuse and financial demands.
- The court held that the jewellery-related criminal breach of trust allegation lacked a specific basis linking the jewellery to the husband’s possession or control.
- The court observed that allegations under Section 498A IPC can constitute a continuing offence.
- The High Court clarified that the remaining allegations will be determined by the trial court.
