HC for stricter checks on NRI complainants misusing norms

Cracking down on the misuse of legal process by non-resident Indians (NRIs), the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that complainants filing cases from abroad must deposit costs in advance — to be forfeited if found false or vexatious.The Bench made it clear that they must also submit an undertaking accepting legal consequences if their allegations were found baseless.

The ruling came in a matrimonial dispute where a man sought protection from repeated police inquiries triggered by wife living in Canada after one-month cohabitation. The court held that no citizen could be harassed through multiple inquiries.

Justice Sanjay Vashisth asserted: “For such a litigant/complainant sitting abroad, it should be imperative to pay costs to the nation, adding advantage to the economy of the country by depositing the amount in advance, if their complaints are found to be false.”

Calling for a stricter approach, Justice Vashisth asserted that the “agencies of the country” and the courts for no reason were burdened “and made busy by such kind of litigants”.

Referring to manifold inquiries, the court asserted that the police had no legal basis to entertain repeated complaints or conduct multiple inquiries without following the prescribed procedure.

“There seems to be no concept/procedure of holding multiple inquiries by the police in the Criminal Procedure Code or the BNSS, 2023, like by the tribunals or the commissions… and that too without registration of criminal case or Rojnamcha,” the Bench asserted.

Justice Vashisth added that a broader impression was that the police was inactive, insensitive or overactive as its functioning was less guided by the procedure prescribed. The Bench also expressed concern over the growing number of petitions filed due to police entertaining such representations. “This has been reminded a number of times by issuing necessary directions at different occasions by this court. Due to this practice adopted by the Punjab Police, this court has witnessed the pendency of thousands of direction petitions,” the court observed.

Justice Vashisth warned that entertaining representations and issuing directions could end up granting the police “unbridled” powers beyond the scope of BNSS/CrPC or any other law of the land. The Bench added that a citizen could not be harassed by seeking his presence under the pretext of holding multiple inquiries as parties could not be called to the police station without registration of cases.

Issuing a cautionary note to the police, the court warned: “Someday, sometime the ice would break and the courts would be compelled to haul up somebody irrespective of his/her post or designation under the law of contempt, as the directions not to proceed against law… have already been issued several times by the court.”

Directing investigating agencies to take note of the observations, the court directed forwarding the order to Home Secretary and the Director-General of Police.