High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:46473-DB NAFR AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.09.12 11:24:18 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 143 of 2025 Afrin Sana W/o Mohammad Adil Bhojani Aged About 31 Years R/o Daubada, First Floor, Nayapara, Gole Bazar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) versus ... Petitioner 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Kotwali, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Mohammad Aadil Bhojani S/o Mohammad Amin Bhojani Aged About 37 Years R/o Flat No. 409, Muzaffar Residency, Near SBI Colony, Mehandipatnam, Hyderabad ... Respondents __________________________________________________________ For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Senior Advocate with Mr. Suraj Jaiswal, Advocate __________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 11.09.2025 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following prayer :- “1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a order/orders, writ/writs, direction/directions quashing the impugned F.I.R. bearing No. 0014/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Raipur, District Raipur 2 against the petitioner, on 29.01.2025 at near about 16:01 Hours for the incident occurred on 29.12.2022 and registered on the instance of the respondent No. 2/complainant/husband of the petitioner, for the offences punishable under Section 420, 467, 468 of Indian Penal Code. 2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, which it deems fit and proper.” 2. As per the mediation report dated 08/09/2025, mediation between the parties has failed. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the petitioner is the wife of respondent No.2/complainant. On 29/01/2025, FIR has been lodged by the husband/respondent No.2 on the allegation that his wife/petitioner by furnishing the wrong information has procured the birth certificate of their daughter in the name of Aadil @ Aizal Aadil and has shown her place of birth at Raipur, whereas she was born at Hyderabad when they were residing together at Hyderabad. It is alleged that on the basis of the said alleged birth certificate, she has obtained the passport of her daughter also and has applied for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Based on above facts, an FIR has been registered against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner got married with the complainant/respondent No.2 on 09/10/2021 at Raipur. The complainant who is the husband of the petitioner, at the time of marriage was working at Hyderabad. After the marriage, 3 both of them stayed at Hyderabad for a period of 1 year and out of their wedlock, a daughter was born at Hyderabad. Thereafter they shifted to Kingdom of Bahrain. The petitioner was subjected with cruelty and she was also assaulted by the complainant at Kingdom of Bahrain. Thereafter, the petitioner lodged a complaint and an F.I.R was registered under Section 498A, 323, 506, 354A, 377 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Muslim Woman (Protection of Rights on Marriage), Act 2019 against the husband/complainant and the charge sheet has been filed against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant/ respondent No.2 who is the husband was aware about the second birth certificate of his daughter issued at Raipur and even in the family visa, the name of daughter has been shown as Aizal Aadil, which shows that the husband was aware of the said fact. Learned counsel further submitted that on the basis of the complaint of the husband, the authorities of Municipal Corporation Raipur vide its letter dated 29/01/2025, has cancelled the birth certificate of their daughter. He further submits that the documents shows that husband was very well aware in respect of the birth certificate issued from Raipur and in fact he has applied for the passport. The documents further shows that the husband while applying for the passport, Visa, while obtaining the Air Tickets and Visa, has shown the name of their daughters as Aizal Aadil. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant submits that the daughter of the respondent No.2 was born at Fernandez Hospital Hyderabad, but the petitioner without there being any 4 reason obtained birth certificate from Raipur by changing the place of the birth and the name of the daughter being given by the complainant i.e. Aizal Aadil. She further submits that the petitioner in a mala fide manner used the above birth certificate in preparation of Passport and other official documents and the respondent No.2 was unaware of the fake birth certificate being procured by the petitioner. She submits that although the matter was referred to the mediation center, the respondent No.2/husband has made all efforts to settle the dispute amicably. The respondent No.2/husband requested only the visitation right to meet his daughter, but the petitioner/wife was adamant in refusing to allow such a request. Despite his repeated requests, the petitioner/wife has denied such visitation. Hence, learned counsel prayed that the visitation rights be granted to the respondent No.2/husband, to enable him to meet his minor child. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there is a matrimonial dispute going on between the parties; and particularly considering that on the basis of the complaint made by the husband, the authorities of Municipal Corporation Raipur vide its letter dated 29/01/2025, has cancelled the birth certificate of the daughter, who was born in Hyderabad, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned FIR No.0014/2025 dated 29/01/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali Raipur, District Raipur for the offence 5 under Sections 420, 467, 468 of IPC against the petitioner deserves to be and is hereby quashed. 8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. However, looking to the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent No.2/husband that the petitioner is adamant and denied the request of visitation right to meet his daughter, the respondent No.2/husband may avail the remedy before appropriate forum/Court under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, if so advised. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) SD/- (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Amardeep