SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Can Be Investigated And Prosecuted In India For Crime Committed By An Indian Citizen In Foreign Country: Allahabad HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Division Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Subash Chandra Sharma of Allahabad High Court refused to quash a FIR registered against an American husband under the Indian Penal Code and the Domestic Violence Act.

In accordance with Sections 188 and 189 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the crimes allegedly committed outside of India by an Indian national may be investigated and tried in India.

In this case, the couple wed in 2011, but it is alleged that shortly after the wedding, the husband stole her salary and used it to pay off his debts.

In addition, it is alleged that the husband forced his wife to leave her job in India in order to travel to the United States on an H4 visa and work online in the United States, which is not permitted.

In 2016, the wife became pregnant in the United States, but the pregnancy ended in miscarriage because her husband pushed her. When she became pregnant again in 2017, she decided to remain in India.

However, the wife returned to the United States in an attempt to save her marriage, but her husband did not care for her, and when her in-laws arrived, she was required to perform all household chores.

Later, the husband serves her with a divorce notice. The woman returned to the United States to save her marriage, but her husband refused to communicate with her and beat her.

She also claimed that she was not given any money, and that when she was admitted to the hospital in 2019 without funds, hospital staff suggested she return to India.

After returning to India, the wife filed a domestic violence complaint and claimed that her husband had secretly filed for divorce.

The wife claimed that in February 2021, two individuals visited her home and threatened to murder her and her family if she did not retract the complaint.

In contrast, the petitioner's attorney denied the allegations and stated that the petitioner had used his money to purchase a home in Noida for his wife.

He added that the wife was aware of the divorce petition in the United States and that she filed the contested FIR.

In addition, it was stated that the father had filed a habeas corpus petition seeking custody of the child.

After hearing the arguments, the court determined that the FIR's allegations against the husband constitute a cognizable offence.

According to the court, the allegations of cruelty and the allegations that the husband caused the wife's miscarriage and stole her money are serious allegations.

The court also determined that the allegations of a threat against the wife have merit.

After analysing the nature of the allegations and the case's facts and circumstances, the court determined that the FIR should not be dismissed.

The court also noted that under sections 188 and 189 of the Criminal Procedure Code, crimes allegedly committed outside of India can be tried in India.

Having reached this conclusion, the court dismissed the instant petitions.

D.D:-10 JUNE,2022

Shri Abhishek Shukla Versus State Of U P And 3 Others

Latest Legal News