1. Appeal against denial of permission to travel abroad for an accused arrayed in a complaint under Section 498A, Indian Penal Code. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 15 , 16 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1314
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Indira Banerjee, J.K. Maheshwari, JJ.
Deepak Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 2022 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9762 of 2021)
Decided On : 12-01-2022
Advocates appeared:
Mr. Manu Mridul, Advocate, Mr. Surya Kant, Advocate, Ms. Priyanka Tyagi, Advocate, Mr. Shalaj Mridul, Advocate, For the Appellant / Dr. Monika Gusain, Advocate, For the Respondent.
Mr. Manu Mridul, Advocate, Mr. Surya Kant, Advocate, Ms. Priyanka Tyagi, Advocate, Mr. Shalaj Mridul, Advocate, For the Appellant / Dr. Monika Gusain, Advocate, For the Respondent.
The fundamental right of personal liberty to travel abroad cannot be denied based on unsubstantiated allegations.
Headnote:
Personal Liberty - Fundamental Right - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498A - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a resident of the United States, sought permission to travel back to resume his job. The complaint against him did not disclose any criminal offense, and the High Court denied his request based on the complainant's apprehension that her husband might flee the country.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations in the FIR did not disclose any offense against the appellant and that the denial of permission to leave the country was not sustainable in law.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant could be denied his fundamental right of personal liberty to travel abroad based on the complaint against him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the allegations in the complaint did not disclose any offense against the appellant, and the denial of permission to leave the country was not justified.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the order denying permission to the appellant to leave the country was set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- constitutional law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Whether the fundamental right to travel abroad can be denied to an accused when allegations do not prima facie disclose a criminal offence. (Para 4 , 25 )
3. Allegations against the brother-in-law are vague and omnibus, failing to constitute cruelty under Section 498A IPC or justify restricting personal liberty. (Para 14 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 25 )
4. Personal liberty to travel abroad cannot be denied to an accused if the allegations against them do not prima facie disclose a criminal offence. (Para 4 , 23 )
5. Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside and restriction on the appellant leaving the country deleted. (Para 24 , 26 )
6. What constitutes cruelty under Section 498A IPC regarding relatives of the husband?
Cruelty requires willful conduct likely to drive a woman to suicide or cause grave injury. Vague allegations, keeping jewelry for safety, or failing to control an adult brother living independently do not constitute cruelty under this section. (Para 14 , 18 , 19 )
7. Can the right to travel abroad be restricted based on the flight risk of a co-accused?
No. The apprehension that one accused person might flee the country cannot be a valid ground to deny another accused's prayer to travel abroad to resume employment. (Para 23 )
8. Are omnibus allegations sufficient to restrict an accused's personal liberty to travel?
No. Where allegations are general and omnibus, and do not prima facie disclose a specific offence or liability, the fundamental right to personal liberty to travel abroad should not be denied. (Para 4 , 20 , 23 )
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
