Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1372 (ALL)

Rais Ahmad v. State of U. P.

2023-05-19

J.J.MUNIR

body2023
JUDGMENT : J.J. MUNIR, J. 1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Code’ for short) has been filed, seeking to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 5381 of 2023, State v. Mohd. Azeem and Others (Arising Out of Case Crime No. 233 of 2022) under Sections 498A, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for short), Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (‘the Act of 1961’ for short) and Section 3/4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 (‘the Act of 2019’ for short), Police Station Seohara, District Bijnor, pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor. 2. It may be noted at the outset that applicants Nos.1 to 6 have been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Act of 1961, whereas applicant No. 7, who is the husband of the complainant-opposite party, Smt. Rukhsar, has been charge-sheeted under Sections 498A, 323 IPC, Section 3/4 of the Act of 1961 and Section 3/4 of the Act of 2019. 3. The allegation against the husband are that on 15.01.2022 at about 04:00 P.M., he pronounced a Triple Talaq, putting an end to the marriage. This divorce in the triple mode was pronounced over telephone. The complainant-opposite party has complained of cruelty by applicants Nos. 1 to 7, including the said applicants turning her out of her matrimonial home. There is a case of demand of dowry by all the applicants, including cash in the sum of Rs.15 lacs. The complainant-opposite party’s husband stays and works in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. There were certain other allegations regarding molestation and rape, but during investigation, these were not held established. However, during investigation, offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Act of 1961 were found to be disclosed against applicants Nos. 1 to 6, and against applicant No. 7, under Sections 4987A, 323 IPC, Section 3/4 of the Act of 1961 and Section 3/4 of the Act of 2019. The Police, after investigation, have filed a charge-sheet. 4. This Court entertained this application vide order dated 08.05.2023 and summoned the complainant-opposite party’s husband, who was impleaded, pending proceedings, as applicant No. 7 to the application. He is away from the country, serving in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The Police, after investigation, have filed a charge-sheet. 4. This Court entertained this application vide order dated 08.05.2023 and summoned the complainant-opposite party’s husband, who was impleaded, pending proceedings, as applicant No. 7 to the application. He is away from the country, serving in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In compliance with this Court’s order dated 08.05.2023, instead of complainant-opposite party’s husband, her father-in-law appeared before the Court, and so did the complainant-opposite party. The parties were sent to the Court-annexed Mediation Centre the same day, with a direction that the Centre may explore the possibility of resolving the dispute between parties, if need be, through video conferencing put across to the complainant-opposite party’s husband. The report from the Mediation Centre dated 18.05.2023 shows that applicant No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 appeared before the Centre, and so did the complainant-opposite party’s husband, Mohd. Azeem, through video conferencing, but the mediation was terminated, saying “Parties not willing for the mediation.” 5. Heard Mr. Umair Mahmood, learned Counsel for the applicants, Mr. Vivek Pandey, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2 and Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 6. Upon hearing learned Counsel for parties, this Court finds that there are materials in the case diary, which show prima facie commission of offences under Sections 498A IPC, 3/4 of the Act of 1961 and 3/4 of the Act of 2019. It is not possible for this Court, as the learned Counsel wants, to determine the truth of the allegations, all of which constitute the applicants’ disputed defence. The allegations may be true or quite untrue. The Trial Court would have to determine it, upon holding a trial, wherein both sides would lead evidence. Of course, it is for the prosecution to establish the charges. 7. It is noticed in particular that one of the offences charged against applicant No. 7 is pronouncement of Triple Talaq. This offence has been created under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, a statute of very recent origin, enacted in order to suppress the mischief of pronouncement of Triple Talaq amongst a particular section of citizens of India. The practice has been regarded as oppressive, and the legislature has decided to suppress it by making it an offence punishable by law. The practice has been regarded as oppressive, and the legislature has decided to suppress it by making it an offence punishable by law. Therefore, to liberally interfere and scuttle a prosecution for an offence involving pronouncement of Triple Talaq would be to bog down a statute recently introduced by the legislature to curtail a prevalent mischief in the society for quite some time. The pronouncement of Triple Talaq being regarded as utterly undesirable and something to be abolished by the legislature, the Statute has to be enforced with all its rigours. A prevalent practice in society takes a lot of time to eradicate and if the legislative endeavour is not encouraged, the likelihood of the practice surviving and the legislation remaining a dead letter, is imminent. That this Court will not permit to happen. 8. In the circumstances above noticed, there no good ground to interfere with the impugned proceedings. The prayer to quash the impugned proceedings is, consequently, declined. 9. In the result, this application under Section 482 of the Code fails and stands rejected.