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) 212
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Ali Nadeem Mirza and Another – Appellants
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others – Respondent
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 respondent residing abroad constitutes an abuse of process of law, leading to quashing of the FIR and related proceedings.
Subject
Criminal Law - Jurisdiction
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498A, 323, 506, 406 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Jurisdiction - FIR filed by the fourth respondent alleging offences against the first appellant was quashed due to lack of jurisdiction as the respondent resided in the USA, constituting an abuse of process of law. (Paras 5 and 6)
(B) Settlement - The court did not take cognizance of the settlement deed as the fourth respondent failed to appear to confirm it. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
The first appellant, a citizen of Germany, and the fourth respondent, residing in the USA, were married on 25th October, 2015, and living separately since 12th January, 2016. The fourth respondent filed an FIR on 28th December, 2016, alleging various offences.
Findings of Court:
The FIR was quashed as it was deemed an abuse of process of law due to the respondent's continuous residence in the USA.
Issues: The main issue was the jurisdiction of the Lucknow court to entertain the FIR filed by a respondent residing abroad.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the FIR filed by the fourth respondent was an abuse of process of law, as she was continuously residing in the USA, and thus, the jurisdiction of the Lucknow court was not established.
Result: Appeal allowed.
(B) Settlement - The court did not take cognizance of the settlement deed as the fourth respondent failed to appear to confirm it. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
The first appellant, a citizen of Germany, and the fourth respondent, residing in the USA, were married on 25th October, 2015, and living separately since 12th January, 2016. The fourth respondent filed an FIR on 28th December, 2016, alleging various offences.
Findings of Court:
The FIR was quashed as it was deemed an abuse of process of law due to the respondent's continuous residence in the USA.
Issues: The main issue was the jurisdiction of the Lucknow court to entertain the FIR filed by a respondent residing abroad.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the FIR filed by the fourth respondent was an abuse of process of law, as she was continuously residing in the USA, and thus, the jurisdiction of the Lucknow court was not established.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Tarkeshwar Nath, Harshit Singh, Anant Dev, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal
For the Respondent: Shaurya Sahay, Aditya Kumar, Ruchil Raj
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Tarkeshwar Nath, Harshit Singh, Anant Dev, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal
For the Respondent: Shaurya Sahay, Aditya Kumar, Ruchil Raj
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 constitutes an abuse of the process of law. (Para 5 )
4. An FIR filed by a person continuously residing outside the country may be quashed as an abuse of the process of law. (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 observed 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. Can a settlement deed be taken on record if one party fails to appear in court?
The court may decline to take cognizance of a settlement deed if the party who entered into the settlement does not appear to confirm it. (Para 6 )
8. What is the effect of quashing an FIR on subsequent proceedings?
Quashing the FIR also results in the quashing of the charge-sheet and all other proceedings filed on the basis of that FIR. (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 25th 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.
