Mohammed Afaaqaue Ahmed and Ors. Vs the State through and Anr.

SMT. AFREEN JABEEN W/O MOHAMMED AFAAQUE AHMED AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: TOLI CHOWKI HYDERABAD TELANGANA NOW AT BHADRODDIN COLONY, BIDAR - 583103

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. RAVI B. PATIL ADV. FOR R2)

¶29

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS, FIR AND CHARGE SHEET REGISTERED AGAINST PETITIONERS NO.1-5 IN CC NO. 7985/2023, ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.03/2023 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 504, 323, 506, 149 OF IPC REGISTERED BY THE BIDAR WOMEN POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONOURABLE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT BIDAR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶30

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3687 CRL.P No. 200617 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA)

¶37

Heard Sri Liyaqat Fareed Ustad, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 and Sri Ravi B Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶38

The present petition is filed with the following prayer:

¶39

“WHEREFORE, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire proceedings, FIR and charge sheet registered against petitioners No.1-5 in C.C.No. 985/2023, arising out of Crime No.03/2023 for the offences punishable u/S 498A, 504, 323, 506, 149 of IPC registered by the Bidar Women Police Station, pending on the file of the Hon’ble of Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Bidar, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶40

Facts of the case in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under:

¶41

Respondent No.2 filed a complaint with Bidar women police station on 10.01.2023 registered in Crime No.3/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶42

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3687 CRL.P No. 200617 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Gist of the complaint averments would reveal that respondent No.2 was married to petitioner No.1/accused No.1 as per the Muslim rites and customs, in the year 2009 at Hyderabad. Couple lived happily for some time and thereafter, there were serious differences in the marital life. When respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1 were at United Arab Emirates (‘UAE’ for short) there were some serious differences.

¶45

Ultimately, respondent No.2 had to seek the intervention of the legal authorities at UAE and obtain her passport from accused and returned to India.

¶46

After returning to India, she has filed a complaint alleging the ill treatment and harassment against petitioners.

¶47

In the meantime, petitioners have approached this Court with the aforesaid prayer on the ground that the petitioner No.1 has obtained an order of divorce at UAE. Therefore, sought for quashing of the pending criminal case.

¶48

Sri Liyaqat Fareed Ustad, learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that very continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law, in view

¶49

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3687 CRL.P No. 200617 of 2024

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

of the fact that petitioner No.1 has obtained an order of divorce in UAE. He would further contend that it was a contested matter and not an ex-parte order as is sought to be canvassed on behalf of the respondent No.2.

¶52

Per contra, Sri Ravi B.Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader would support the continuation of the criminal proceedings.

¶53

Sri Ravi B.Patil, learned counsel would contend that the order of divorce is an ex-parte order and therefore, the pending criminal proceeding has to continue.

¶54

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court perused the material on record, meticulously.

¶55

On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that marriage of respondent No.2 with petitioner No.1 is not in dispute. Details of allegations made in the complaint has been investigated by the police and after thorough investigation, charge sheet came to be filed.

¶56

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3687 CRL.P No. 200617 of 2024

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

Admittedly, respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1 lived in UAE for some time as well. Whether the said decree of divorce passed by the Court in UAE is a contested decree or not and, whether any such contested decree of divorce will have impact on the pending criminal proceedings, cannot be decided in this petition filed for quashing of the criminal proceedings, by holding a mini trial.

¶59

Even assuming that the decree of divorce has been granted by the Court at UAE, the harassment imparted to the respondent No.2 when the marriage was subsisting is to be enquired by the learned Trial Judge by holding a detailed trial.

¶60

Expressing any opinion in this petition by this Court, that too, at the time of considering the request for quashing the criminal proceedings would definitely prejudice the rights of the parties, one way or the other.

¶61