The fundamental right of personal liberty to travel abroad cannot be denied based on unsubstantiated allegations.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. No one has appeared on behalf of the Respondent No.2 in spite of notice.

3. This appeal is against an order dated 24.11.2021 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissing Criminal Misc. No. 33701/2021 in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 33995 of 2021 filed by the Appellant for permission to travel back to the United States of America, where he has a job, and resume his duties.

4. The short question in this appeal is, whether the Appellant can be denied his fundamental right of personal liberty to travel abroad, subject to possession of a valid passport, visa and other requisite travel documents, only because he is arrayed as accused in a complaint filed by his brother's wife against his brother being the husband of the complainant and his parents, particularly mother and that too when the allegations in the complaint do not disclose any criminal offence on the part of the Appellant. The answer to the aforesaid question has to be in the negative.

5. The Appellant is the brother-in-law (husband's brother) of the Respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as the "complainant"). The Appellant is employed in Texas in the United States of America.

6. The complainant Annupriya Sharma, a permanent resident of Kurukshetra was married to Nitin Sharma, brother of the Appellant, according to the Hindu rites and customs on 20.01.2019.

7. On 03.02.2019, the complainant's husband went back to the United States of America, where he had been working. On 16.02.2019, the complainant left for the United States of America, to join her husband. She had to travel alone.

8. The complainant has stated that the said Nitin Sharma had been working as Application Engineer in a Multinational Company NOVOPLM (SCONCE), and had been residing in the United States of America since 2009 on H1B-Visa. The said Nitin Sharma apparently resides at Charlotte in North Carolina, as would be evident from the array of accused persons in the complaint.

9. It appears that there were differences and matrimonial disputes between the complainant and her husband Nitin Sharma, brother of the Appellant from the inception of their marriage. According to the complainant she was also harassed for dowry by her parents-in-law, particularly mother-in-law.

10. On 16.08.2019, the complainant returned to India, allegedly at the behest of her in-laws. In November 2019, the complainant's parents-in-law returned to India. After the complainant's parents-in-law returned, the complainant and her parents tried to contact them and also tried to contact the complainant's husband Nitin Sharma. The complainant's in-laws tried to avoid the complainant and her parents on one pretext or the other and the complainant's husband Nitin Sharma did not answer their calls. The complainant was not allowed to live in her matrimonial home at Faridabad.

11. On 07.09.2020, an FIR was filed by the complainant against her husband and in-laws under Sections 323, 34, 406, 420, 498A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at the Thanesar City Police Station at Kurukshetra under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The complainant's husband Nitin Sharma, her father-in-law, Suresh Chand Sharma, her mother-in-law, Satyawati Sharma and the Appellant were arrayed as Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively.

12. In a nutshell, the material allegations in the FIR were:

(i) The accused pressurized the complainant's family to organise the marriage ceremony of the complainant and the said Nitin Sharma (Accused No.1) at Faridabad instead of Kurukshetra. As ceremonies/functions were held at Kurukshetra and Faridabad complainant's parents incurred expenditure of Rs. 23 lakhs,

(ii) The complainant's mother-in-law (Accused No.3) had demanded gold ornaments of her choice, saying that her elder daughter-in-law had brought 70 tolas of gold.

(iii) After marriage the complainant's in-laws expressed dissatisfaction over the dowry brought by her. Her mother-in-law (Accused N