Madhya Pradesh High Court: In an application for quashment of FIR on the grounds that the petitioners (mother-in-law and sister-in-law) can be prosecuted under Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, a single-judge bench of Anil Verma, J., partly quashed the FIR concerning the charges under Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 against the petitioners. However, the Court directed the trial court to proceed for the remaining charges under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act as the prima facie evidence is available on record against the petitioners.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the complainant/respondent 2, lodged an FIR at P.S. Rajpur, District Badwani (M.P.), against her husband, her mother-in-law (Petitioner 1), and sister-in-law (Petitioner 2). The complainant alleged that after her Nikah on 15-04-2019 as per Muslim rites, she was physically and mentally harassed for dowry by her husband and in-laws, and her husband pronounced ‘Talaq’ thrice.
The petitioners contended that the alleged offence occurred in Mumbai, thus P.S. Rajpur had no jurisdiction to register the FIR. The petitioners argued that Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 (the Act) applies only to the Muslim husband, not to the in-laws. The petitioners also argued the FIR was lodged after a delay of 14 months without any proper explanation, suggesting the incident is an afterthought.
Moot Point
-
Whether P.S. Rajpur had jurisdiction to register the FIR given the alleged offence occurred in Mumbai?
-
Whether the petitioners (mother-in-law and sister-in-law) can be prosecuted under Section 4 of the Act?
-
Whether the FIR and consequential proceedings should be quashed due to the delay and lack of prima facie evidence?
Court’s Analysis
Jurisdiction
The Court noted that Section 177 CrPC1 allows for the cognizance of offenses in another locality if the offense is a continuing one or if its consequences occur in a different location. The Court referred to Rupali Devi v. State of U.P., (2019) 5 SCC 384, where the Supreme Court opined that “Courts in the location where the wife seeks refuge after fleeing or being driven from the matrimonial home due to acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives also have jurisdiction to hear a complaint alleging commission of offences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code” and held that jurisdiction could extend to the location where the wife seeks refuge due to cruelty.
Applicability of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019
The Court noted that Section 3 of the Act has rendered the pronouncement of Talaq by Muslim husband upon his wife has void and illegal and Section 4 of the Act punishes the Muslim husband, who pronounces Talaq thrice upon his wife, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years. The Court asserted that “the provisions of Section 3 & 4 evidently operates in relation to Muslim husband alone.” The Court also referred to Rahna Jalal v. State of Kerala, (2021) 1 SCC 733, where the Supreme Court which clarified that Section 4 targets the Muslim husband, not in-laws. The Court held that Section 4 applies only to the Muslim husband, thus quashing the charges under this section against the petitioners.
Delay in FIR
The Court noted that the delay in lodging FIRs in matrimonial disputes is not uncommon and should be evaluated during the trial. The Court referred to Skoda Auto Volkswagen (India) (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2021) 5 SCC 795, where the Supreme Court held that “mere delay on the part of complaint in lodging the complaint, cannot by itself be a ground to quash the FIR. Therefore, this Court cannot embark upon any enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegation made in FIR ought not to scuttled at initial stage.” The Court held that delay in lodging an FIR should be considered during the trial, not at the quashment stage.
The Court stated that Section 482 of CrPC2 has been incorporated “to prevent abuse of process of law and not to encourage the offence”. The Court stated that the courts cannot make roving inquiry at this stage, but if the uncontroverted allegations do not make any offence, only then this Court can quash the FIR. The Court noted that prima facie evidence is available on record against the petitioners and upheld the remaining charges under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, citing the need for evidence examination during the trial.
Court’s Observations
The Court noted the significance of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 in ensuring justice for Muslim women. The Court highlighted the necessity of legal reform to ensure matrimonial justice and equality for women in the Muslim community. The Court emphasised on the need for a Uniform Civil Code to address various social and legal inequalities. The Court stated that
“There are a lot of other deprecating, fundamentalist, superstitious and ultra-conservative practices prevalent in the society that are clothed in the name of faith and belief. Though the Constitution of India already encapsulates Article 44 that advoactes a uniform civil code for the citizens, yet the same needs to become a reality not just on paper. A well-drafted uniform civil code could serve as a check on such superstitious and evil practices and would strengthen the integrity of the nation.”
Court’s Decision
The Court partly allowed the petition by quashing the charges under Section 4 of the Act against the petitioners but directed the trial to proceed on other charges under the IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act.
[Aliya v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine MP 4914, Decided on 16-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, Counsel for the Petitioners
Shri Amay Bajaj, Panel Lawyer, Counsel for the Respondent No. 1/State
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
1. Section 197 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
2. Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023