1. Matrimonial dispute — FIR registered under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 406 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. (Para 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 136
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S.OKA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Ali Nadeem Mirza & Anr. – Appellants
VERSUS
The State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 265 of 2025 [@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6527 of 2018]
Decided On : 17-01-2025
Important Points
Filing an FIR by a party residing abroad constitutes an abuse of process of law, leading to quashing of the FIR due to lack of jurisdiction.
Subject
Criminal Law - Dowry Offences
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498A, 323, 506, 406 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - FIR filed by the fourth respondent alleging offences against the first appellant - Court finds that the FIR is an abuse of process of law due to the fourth respondent's continuous stay in the USA - The settlement deed is not taken cognizance of as the fourth respondent did not appear to confirm it. (Paras 5, 6)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court addressed the issue of jurisdiction, concluding that the FIR filed in Lucknow by a respondent residing in the USA was improper. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
The first appellant, a citizen of Germany, and the fourth respondent, residing in the USA, were married on 4th October, 2015, and living separately since 12th January, 2016. The fourth respondent filed an FIR on 28th December, 2016, alleging various offences under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the FIR and related proceedings, determining that the filing was an abuse of process due to the respondent's residence abroad.
Issues: The main issue was the jurisdiction of the Lucknow court regarding the FIR filed by a respondent residing in the USA.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the FIR was an abuse of process of law, emphasizing the importance of jurisdiction in legal proceedings.
Result: Appeal allowed.
(B) Jurisdiction - The court addressed the issue of jurisdiction, concluding that the FIR filed in Lucknow by a respondent residing in the USA was improper. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
The first appellant, a citizen of Germany, and the fourth respondent, residing in the USA, were married on 4th October, 2015, and living separately since 12th January, 2016. The fourth respondent filed an FIR on 28th December, 2016, alleging various offences under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the FIR and related proceedings, determining that the filing was an abuse of process due to the respondent's residence abroad.
Issues: The main issue was the jurisdiction of the Lucknow court regarding the FIR filed by a respondent residing in the USA.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the FIR was an abuse of process of law, emphasizing the importance of jurisdiction in legal proceedings.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath, Adv. Mr. Harshit Singh, Adv. Mr. Anant Dev, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shaurya Sahay, AOR Mr. Aditya Kumar, Adv. Ms. Ruchil Raj, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath, Adv. Mr. Harshit Singh, Adv. Mr. Anant Dev, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shaurya Sahay, AOR Mr. Aditya Kumar, Adv. Ms. Ruchil Raj, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to the territorial jurisdiction of the court where the FIR was registered. (Para 5 )
3. Filing an FIR by a complainant continuously residing abroad is an abuse of the process of law. (Para 5 )
4. Prosecution based on an FIR filed by a complainant continuously residing outside the country is an abuse of process and may be quashed. (Para 5 , 6 )
5. Appeal allowed — FIR, charge-sheet, and subsequent proceedings quashed. (Para 6 , 7 )
6. Does filing an FIR by a person continuously residing abroad constitute an abuse of process?
Yes, the court held that filing an FIR by a complainant who is continuously staying in a foreign country is an abuse of the process of law. (Para 5 )
7. Will a court take cognizance of a settlement deed if the complainant fails to appear?
The court may refuse to take cognizance of a settlement deed if the party involved does not appear to confirm the settlement. (Para 6 )
ORDER
1. Service of notice to fourth respondent is complete. As per the report submitted by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India dated 25th September, 2024, the fourth respondent who is the resident of USA has not chosen to appear.
2. Leave granted.
3. The first appellant is the husband and fourth respondent is the wife. The second appellant is the brother of the first appellant. It is brought on record that the first appellant is a citizen of Germany and the fourth respondent is residing in Bosten, USA. Nikah was performed on 4th October, 2015. There is material on record to show that the first appellant and fourth respondent were living separately since 12th January, 2016. It is claimed in the appeal that at the instance of the parents of the fourth respondent, a priest was approached who had agreed to act as a Mediator and that the first appellant handed over all the jewellery to the forth respondent’s mother.
4. On 28th December, 2016, the fourth respondent came back to India and registered First Information Report (FIR) alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 506 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
5. One of the contentions raised is that the Court at Lucknow has no jurisdiction. After having perused the FIR, we find that filing of the FIR by the fourth respondent who is continuously staying in USA is nothing but an abuse of process of law.
6. There is an application filed for taking on record the deed of settlement between the first appellant and the fourth respondent. However, we are not taking cognizance of the settlement as the fourth respondent has not appeared to confirm the settlement. In any case, the prosecution of the appellants on the basis of impugned FIR cannot continue and accordingly, by setting aside the impugned judgment, we quash FIR No.0180 dated 28th December, 2016 registered with Mahila Police Station, Lucknow and charge-sheet and other proceedings filed on the basis of FIR.
7. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
8. Pending applications stand disposed of.
