Himachal Pradesh High Court: In a petition filed for quashing the FIR dated 06-05-2022, registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 (‘the Act’), Rakesh Kainthla, J., stated that the Mohammedan law did not provide a single mode of Talaq, but multiple modes and out of these modes, the legislature had only prohibited Talaq-e-Biddat or any other similar form of Talaq having the effect of instantaneous and irrevocable divorce pronounced by a Muslim husband. The Court stated that prima facie, the letter written by the petitioner, which was the subject matter of the FIR, did not fall within the definition of Talaq-e-Biddat, and was not punishable under Section 3 of the Act.
The Court stated that it could not say anything about the truthfulness of the statement, and it was a matter of trial to be determined by the Trial Court. Further, the status report showed that a charge sheet had been filed before the Court, therefore, the Competent Court was seized of the matter. Thus, the Court stated that it was not possible to quash the FIR in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction, and accordingly dismissed the present petition.
Background
In the present case, the informant filed an FIR before the police station, stating that his daughter-victim was married to the petitioner on 12-12-2020. The petitioner was informed that the victim had to undergo training as an Ayurvedic Doctor, and he expressed his consent for the same. Further, the petitioner’s demand for dowry was also fulfilled. However, the petitioner and his father started harassing the victim for bringing more dowry. The victim tried to adjust in her matrimonial home, but she was harassed, both mentally and physically. Further, when the victim got admission to the MD Course at Navi Mumbai, the petitioner and his family members became aggressive and threatened her. The petitioner threatened to divorce her and sent a written divorce on 25-04-2022 by levelling false and baseless allegations. It was contended that the divorce sent by the petitioner was a violation of Section 3 of the Act, hence, it was prayed that an action to be taken against the petitioner.
The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. In the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’), it was disclosed that the petitioner had divorced her by pronouncing triple talaq on 13-01-2022. Hence, the police filed a charge sheet before the Court. Thus, being aggrieved from the registration of the FIR, the petitioner had filed the present petition.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that the FIR mentioned that on 25-04-2022, a written talaq was sent by the petitioner by levelling false and baseless allegations against the victim. The Court noted that Section 3 of the Act provided that any pronouncement of Talaq by a Muslim husband upon his wife, by words, either spoken or written or in electronic form or any other manner whatsoever, should be void and illegal.
Further, the Court referred to Mulla Principles of Mahomedan Law 22nd Edition 2019 and observed that the Talaq becomes irrevocable in Talaq Ahasan mode on the expiration of the period of Iddat, in Talaq-e-Hasan mode on the third pronouncement irrespective of Iddat and in Talaq-ul-Biddat mode immediately after it was pronounced irrespective of the Iddat. The Court stated that the Mohammedan law does not provide a single mode of Talaq, but multiple modes and out of these modes, the legislature had only prohibited Talaq-e-Biddat or any other similar form of Talaq having the effect of instantaneous and irrevocable divorce pronounced by a Muslim husband.
The Court stated that in the present case, the FIR refers to the notice dated 25-04-2022, which provided that the petitioner conveyed the first communication of Talaq as required by law by pronouncing the word ‘Talaq’. It nowhere mentioned that the Talaq had become irrevocable, or it had the effect of instantaneous divorce. The Court stated that prima facie, the letter written by the petitioner, which was the subject matter of the FIR, did not fell within the definition of Talaq-e-Biddat, and was not punishable under Section 3 of the Act.
The Court noted that the victim’s statement under Section 164 of the CrPC was challenged as incorrect. Thus, the Court referred to Priyanka Jaiswal v. State of Jharkhand, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 685 and Maneesha Yadav v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 643, and opined that the truthfulness or otherwise of the investigation was not to be seen at this stage. The Court stated that it could not say anything about the truthfulness of the statement, and it was a matter of trial to be determined by the Trial Court. Further, the status report showed that a charge sheet had been filed before the Court, therefore, the Competent Court was seized of the matter. Thus, the Court stated that it was not possible to quash the FIR in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction, and accordingly dismissed the present petition.
[Shehwaz Khan v. State of H.P., 2024 SCC OnLine HP 3766, decided on 08-08-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: M.A. Khan, Sr. Advocate, with Hem Kanta Kaushal and Azmat Hayat Khan, Advocates;
For the Respondents: Ayushi Negi, Deputy Advocate General; Imran Khan and Ketan Singh, Advocates.
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
