Allahabad High Court: In an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) filed against the summoning order dated 17-11-2022, passed by the Magistrate for offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 of the Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, the Single Judge Bench of J.J. Munir, J. opined that frequent interference at the initial stage, with prosecutions under the aforesaid law, where there is some material against the accused at the incipient stage, ought not to be made and rejected the application to quash the proceedings.
According to the complainant, she was earlier married. The accused/applicant used to frequently visit her husband’s house and on a particular day, some fateful events happened, whereafter she was divorced by her husband. Thereafter, she got married to the accused according to Muslim rites and was staying with him as his lawfully wedded wife. The allegation is that the accused beat her up and divorced her pronouncing a Triple Talaq.
The accused submitted that these allegations are false, and the complainant was never divorced by her first husband, nor was she ever married to the accused. Thus, the impugned summoning order is an abuse of process of Court.
The Court said that it is not possible to go into disputed questions of fact or the accused’s defence, in the present proceedings under Section 482 of the Code. It is for the accused to raise appropriate pleas in his defence before the Trial Court, which shall be determined by the Magistrate during the trial.
The Court remarked that the legislature has enacted the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, with the purpose of curtailing the practice of pronouncement of Triple Talaq in the society amongst Muslims and to protect women against the uncertainties in life, arising out of the said practice. The Statute is designed to alter a long-standing norm prevalent amongst members of a section of the society with a view to promote welfare of Muslim women, any act, therefore, designed at violating the said law, if it remains unchecked, in its initial years, would frustrate the object of bringing about the change. Therefore, the Court opined that frequent interference at the initial stage, with prosecutions under the aforesaid law, where there is some material against the accused at the incipient stage, ought not to be made. Thus, the Court rejected the said application.
[Amir v State of UP, 2023 SCC OnLine All 94, decided on 17-03-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel for Applicant: Advocate Mohd. Khalil, Advocate Mohd. Afzal Ansari;
Counsel for Opposite Party: Government Advocate.