Drawing a firm line between marital discord and criminal culpability, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that mere conveyance of parents’ dissatisfaction over customary wedding gifts does not amount to cruelty under Section 498-A of the IPC. The Bench made it clear that Indian courts could not prosecute alleged offences committed abroad by a non-citizen in the absence of statutory sanction.The assertions came as Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal quashed an FIR against a New Zealand citizen, who left India soon after marriage. The case was registered on his estranged wife’s complaint on July 15, 2015, for subjecting a married woman to cruelty and criminal breach of trust under Sections 406, 498-A of the IPC at a police station in Kharar in Mohali district. All consequential proceedings were also ordered to be quashed qua the petitioner. He was represented in the matter by counsel R.S. Bajaj.Gift complaints not cruelty: Court draws the lineThe Bench during the course of hearing was told that the allegation against the husband during his brief stay in India post-marriage was that he conveyed his parents’ dissatisfaction regarding wedding gifts. Rejecting its criminalisation, Justice Nagpal ruled: “Mere conveying complaint of the parents regarding quality of customary gifts given at the time of marriage cannot be termed as cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC.”Referring to the allegations, the Bench added: “Allegations against the petitioner during his stay in Indiado not amount to willful conduct of such a nature as was likely to drive respondent-wife to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life. Nor can the allegations amount to harassment with a view to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry”.Cruelty allegations rooted abroadThe ruling assumes wider significance on jurisdictional limits. Justice Nagpal noted that all substantive allegations of cruelty related to the period when the couple lived in Auckland, New Zealand. “For the alleged offences committed outside India, criminal prosecution cannot be initiated in India,” the Bench added.Justice Nagpal made it clear that prosecution of a non-citizen for acts abroad was tightly circumscribed: “Section 4 of the IPC and Section 188 of the CrPC permit inquiry or trial of an offence in India by a non-citizen only if the offence is committed outside India on any ship or aircraft registered in India, that too, with the previous sanction of the Central Government…. “Timeline undermines prosecution caseJustice Nagpal asserted a close reading of the complaint revealed that the couple lived together in India only for 16 days’ post-marriage and 15 days during a later visit. The only allegation against the husband in India was the communication of dissatisfaction over gifts and failure to give money. All detailed accusations of harassment, financial control, and coercion arose during their stay in New Zealand. The court also found the allegations in India to be “far too vague” and insufficient to attract penal provisions.Parallel proceedings already failedJustice Nagpal also took note of prior litigation initiated by the complainant, including maintenance proceedings. The Bench observed maintenance was awarded to the child but denied to her due to concealment of facts and sufficient income. The Bench also observed that the domestic violence case was also dismissed after detailed examination of identical allegations and the marriage already dissolved ex-parte in 2022. “The allegations even if taken at their face value & accepted in entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence,” Justice Nagpal added.