Battle lost in foreign court cannot be fought in India.

Judgement of Delhi High Court:
Battle lost in foreign court cannot be fought in India.
Sunday, September 16, 2007 NEW DELHI: In a clear message to NRIs, the Delhi High Court has said that a person who has submitted to the jurisdiction of a court in a foreign country cannot vent his grievances against a ruling abroad in an Indian court on the same ground.
The court passed the order while allowing a petition seeking the quashing of criminal proceedings on a complaint filed by the former wife of an NRI, who alleged that her in-laws were torturing her and not returning her share of joint property.
She lodged the complaint against her in-laws in a police station here after she lost a divorce case filed by her husband in a US court.
Justice S N Dhingra, while quashing criminal proceedings against the woman's in-laws, said "This is not a case where she had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the US court or the court had no jurisdiction.
"Once a competent court has passed an order in respect of return or exchange of dowry articles, no offence can be tried for the same articles in India."
Dhingra said "She lodged the FIR only to settle her personal scores. Criminal law cannot be allowed to be used to settle personal scores, neither can the courts be allowed to be used as tools."
In this case, the woman married a US-based NRI in 1993 and went with him to America, where she alleged that her husband used to harass her.
Five years after their marriage, the husband filed for divorce in a US court and the wedding was dissolved in 1999.
The court, while granting the divorce, had asked for the exchange of dowry and other articles. But it was not returned to her either by her husband or by her in-laws.
She then filed an appeal against the divorce in a higher court in the US but it was dismissed.
The woman returned to India in 2002 and filed a criminal complaint against her in-laws.
Her in-laws then approached the High Court for quashing the criminal proceedings against them, pointing out that she had lost the case in the US.

*********************
NRIs can't file vague police report in India Posted : Sun, 16 September 2007 New Delhi, Sep 16 - The Delhi High Court has said that NRIs cannot file 'vague' criminal complaints in India to settle scores with their relatives after losing a case in their country of residence.
While quashing a complaint against Kanchan Gulati by her divorced daughter-in-law, Justice S N Dhingra said: 'The court should exercise its discretion. Criminal law cannot be allowed to settle the personal score of a complainant who lost her case in a US court.'
Quashing the complaint of Anuja Gulati, the court said: 'She lodged the complaint to settle her personal score. The complainant was not in India, where her mother-in-law was staying, during the period between 1993-2002.'
Anuja, the former wife of Anuranjan Gulati, a computer engineer based in Milwaukee, had filed an FIR with the Delhi Police alleging that her in-laws were torturing her and not returning her property and dowry that was in joint names.
Anuja lost a divorce case filed in the US and has been legally separated from her husband since 1999.
'This is not a case where she had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the US court or the court had no jurisdiction. Once a competent court has passed an order in respect of return or exchange of dowry articles, no offence can be tried for the same articles in India,' Dhingra said in an order pronounced earlier in the week but has only now been made public.
Anuja was married to her US-based NRI husband in 1993 and went with him to America, where she alleged that her husband used to harass her. The husband filed for divorce in a US court five years after their marriage and the wedding was dissolved in 1999.
The court observed that during the period, the mother-in-law neither stayed in the US with Anuja nor in New Delhi. The complaint did not have any basis and was not substantiated by any evidence, the court observed.

*********************8

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIW.P.(Crl.) No. 957/2003Reserved on: 22.08.200712.09.2007Date of Decision: 12.09.2007Kanchan Gulati and Anr........PetitionersThrough : Mr. S.S.Gandhi, Sr.Advocatewith Mr. Vishal Gosain, Advocateversus$ The State and Ors. .........RespondentsThrough : Ms. Mukta Gupta, Advocate for StateMr. Rahul Goyal, Advocate for R-4CORAM:JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?Yes.2.To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes.3.Whether the judgment should be reported Yes. in the Digest?: JUDGMENTThis writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India readwith Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been made for quashing of FIR No. 277/2003under Section 498A/406 IPC registered at Police Station New FriendsColony, Delhi. Petitioners are mother and brother of the former husbandof the complainant (ex mother-in-law and brother-in-law of thecomplainant).2. In the FIR, complainant stated that she was married to AnuranjanGultai R/0 3245, N. oakland Avenue Milwaukee, WI 43211, USA on13.08.1993 at New Delhi. In marriage, her parents spent Rs.2.5 lac forexpenses towards reception of guests, gave various articles and giftsworth Rs.1,46,000/- and an amount of Rs.4500/- was paid to AnuranjanGulati by cheque. Anuranjan Gulati was a computer engineer working inUSA. Marriage took place in Jai Krishna temple at Pitampura. Her parentspaid for her ticket to USA at the time when she left for USA to join herhusband. Her precious and heavy jewellery were kept in India by hermother-in-law and brother-in-law. She went to USA however, the attitudeof her husband in USA was not good towards her and he started harassingher physically and mentally.3. On 06.5.1997 her husband filed a divorce petition in the CircuitCourt of USA. She contested the divorce petition which was laterwithdrawn by her husband on 03.6.1998. Her husband shifted his residencefrom Lake County and on 31.8.1998, he filed another petition for divorcein the Circuit Court, Lake Country, Illinois, USA. She hired services ofanother lawyer and contested the divorce petition to her might. However,vide order dated 31.3.1999 divorce petition was allowed and marriage wasdissolved. In the order, the Court asked for exchange of dowry and otherarticles etc. but the same were not returned to her either by herex-husband or by her mother-in-law or brother-in-law. She approached theAppellate Court in USA and challenged the decree of the Trial Court. Theappeal was dismissed. She alleged that she could not pursue the legalremedy in USA properly due to financial constraints. She came back toIndia on 31.7.2002 thereafter, she lodged this FIR on 1.6.2003.4. Quashing of this FIR has been prayed for by the petitioners. It isargued by the counsel for petitioners that no offence has been committedby any of the petitioners. There are no allegations of cruelty againstthe petitioners. The complainant, after marriage left for USA and allalong lived in USA till July, 2002. Even after July, 2002 she had notstayed with the petitioners even for a single day and there was nooccasion for petitioners to harass her for dowry and perpetuate anycruelty. Complainant had left behind some jewellery articles and as perdecree of divorce, which case was duly contested by the complainant,both the parties were to exchange certainarticles. The ex-husband of the complainant had been all along writingto the complainant to take back those articles, but the complainantinstead of taking back the articles, lodged this FIR.5. The complainant has not disputed about her contesting divorcepetition and filing an appeal before the US Court. The orders of the USCourt have been placed on record. The decree passed by the USA Court hasnot been challenged. The order of the US Court shows that thecomplainant had taken up all grounds like withholding her property,dowry etc. by her husband. The US Court directed the parties to exchangearticles and passed following order:A. That the bonds of matrimony now existing between the petitioner,ANURANJAN GULATI and the Respondent, ANUJA GULATI be and are herebydissolved pursuant to Statute. That said dissolution is granted to bothPetitioner and Respondent.B. That the marital home located at 1258 S. Pleasant Hill Gate, Wakegan,Illinois has been sold and will close on or about March 31, 1999. Thatthe net sales proceeds after paying all costs of sale and deb(s) on thehome shall be equally divided between the parties. That any deficit fromthe sale shall be paid from the 3 Com Corp Stock owned by the parties.C. That each party shall receive his or her own vehicles and each shallexecute any documents necessary to transfer the title of the vehicle tothe other.D. That each party shall receive his or her own personal propertycurrently in his or her possession. That the Husband shall receive thefollowing personal property as his sole property which shall bedelivered to him by the Wife on March 21, 1999:Sharp TVBed (with frame, and box spring)Sharp MicrowaveSmall fridgeCooking Utensils and accessoriesSpicesSquare side table (brown, wood)3 Chairs ( wood frame and brown leather seat)Dining Table and Chairs2 Chairs (steel frame, leather seat)Glass top tablesComforter from auntUtensils, spices and other stuff from my relatives.E. That the 433 shares of 3 Com Corp stock of the parties shall beequally divided between the parties. That a party may sell his or hershares or divide the stock in kind.F. That the Husband shall receive his stock options as his soleproperty.G. That the Oakmark IRA of the Husband which has a value ofapproximately $3889.00 shall be equally divided between the parties by aQualified Domestic Relations Order if such is needed by Oakmark.H. That each party is barred from any maintenance from the other.I. That the Wife and Husband shall equally divide the 3 Com Corporation401 (k) plan acquired during the marriage. That the Wife's interest inthe pension shall be evidenced by a Qualified Domestic Relations Orderto be entered in these proceedings.J. That the parties shall exchange their dowry items within 60 days ofthe entry of this Judgment for Dissolution of marriage. The Wife shallgive to the Husband all the items on the attached list:One gold chain with pendantOne gold ?krishna murti? pendant with diamonds.One diamond ringone pair of big earrings (mina wale)2 pair of earringsone gold ring ( given on Kwar-dhoti)one pair of silver paizebone long mangal-sutra (mina wala)BanglesOne (1) Golden Challa (sister-in-law)The Husband shall give to the Wife all items on the attached list:One Navrattan set (1 necklace, 1 bracelet, 3 earrings with strings)One Sitarami Necklace (Necklace only)One Gold Chain given to meOne Gold and Diamond engagement ringOne Gold wedding bandOne Gold coin (guenea)One Double gold chain given to my motherOne Gold chain given to my sister-in-lawTwo gold rings (1 for my father, 1 for my brother)Two silver trays (rectangular)One silver tray (circular)One silver small bowl (katori)One wedding sareeOne luggage carrier (foldable cart)Check book for bank account in Anuja's name6. The appellate order passed by the appeal court would show that appealwas not dismissed because the appellant had not been able to engageadvocate, as claimed, but it was dismissed on technical ground, sincethe appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation and withoutfulfilling the necessary requirements. After passing of the orders bythe USA Court granting divorce and exchange of dowry articles, thehusband had been writing to the complainant for exchange of articles andtaking back all her articles, but the complainant had not received thesearticles deliberately; the letters written by the husband are on record.7. Quashing of FIR in exercise of writ jurisdiction is a discretion ofthe Court. The Court should exercise discretion in rarest of rare case,where the circumstances and the facts reveal that, even if, all theallegations made in the FIR considered as true, no offence is made out.In the present case, the complainant had all along lived in USA. She hadleft India immediately after her marriage. There are no allegations ofcruelty or breach of trust during this period. The allegations are thather father spent money in marriage beyond his capacity. This does notamount to a dowry demand. If her jewellery or other articles were leftbehind in India with mother-in-law or brother-in-law, a court ofcompetent jurisdiction has passed an order in respect of these dowryarticles and directed the parties for exchange of those articles. Thedecree passed by the court of USA has not been challenged by thecomplainant. She herself submitted to the jurisdiction of the USA Courtand contested the case. She was living, at the time of contesting, thecase in USA and continued to live in USA even after passing of decreetill 2002. She even preferred an appeal, which was dismissed. Thus, itis not a case where decree was obtained by her husband clandestinely orshe had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the US Court or the USCourt had no jurisdiction. Once a competent Court has passed an order inrespect of return or exchange of articles including dowry articles, nooffence under Section 406 IPC can be tried for the same articles inIndia.8. I consider that it is a rarest of rare case, where the Court shouldexercise its discretion. Criminal law can not be allowed to be used tosettle the personal scores neither the Courts can be allowed to be usedas tools. The complainant, who lost her divorce case in USA and was inUSA all along from 1997 till 2002 and had not stayed with thepetitioners, even for a single day. She lodged this FIR only to settleher personal scores. I, therefore, allow this petition. The FIR No.277/2003 under Section 498A/406 IPC registered at Police Station NewFriends Colony, Delhi is hereby quashed.September 12, 2007 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA,J.