lt/ohammed Shoeb Rizwan v. the State of Telangana

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to QUASH the proceedings C.C No 9014 of 2020 pending on the file of Xlll Addl. Chief judicial Magistrate, Hyd. (Xlll ACMM) for offence U/sec.4984 of IPC vide FIR No. 181/2019 of WPS CCS, Hyderabad, in the interest of Justice. l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to STAY all further proceedings including the arrest/execution of NBW against Petitioner/Accused in C.C.No.9014 of 2020 pending on ihe file of Xlll Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderabad (Xlll ACMI\t) pending disposal of the Criminal Petition in the interest of Justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the [\ilemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petrtion and upon hearing the argurlents of IMr PATHAN ASLAM fvloHD KHAN, Advocate for the Petitioners, t/r M.VIVEKANANDA REDDY, Assistant Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER 7 ,7 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6O 64of2025 ORDER: This Criminai Petition is hled under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita' 2023 (for short 'the BNSSJ seeking lo quash the proceedings against Lhe petitioner in C.C.No.901 4 of 2O2o on thc file of the XIII Aciditional Chief .Ir-rcliciat Magistrate, Hyderabad' registered for the offence punishablc under Section 498 A of the tndian Penal Code' 186O (for short, 'lPC')'

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 05 O4'2019 rcspondent No'2lde-Jacto complainant lodged a report before the Police stating that one Mohammed Shoeb Riz'wan came [o hermother,shouseandproposedmarriagetohersis[er,Ayesha the familY members agreed' and Mohammed Shareef- All was solemnize d oo 17 'O8 20 L 5 at accordinglY, the marriage accordance with Muslim rites and MalakPet, HYderabad, in the couPle lived together customs. After the marrtage' pcacefully for a few months' Subsequently' they began preparations to move to Australia and ultimately relocated there \ -- :I$&xrda5'lrE ,ri 2 SKS,J Crt.P.No.6064 of 2O25 on 10.08.2016. After fcrr, days in Australia, d sputes began to arise. The pctilioner frequently quarreled witlr her sister over minor issues, threatened her, and subjectc d her to both physical and mental abuse. At times, the tetitioner u,ould abandon her for days, noL return home, and ailed to provide her u,ith food. As a result, her sister u,as f,trced to borrow monel- from college friends and neighbors to su -live. 11g. .i.,.. informed thc family about the ongoing hara;smcnt and ill_ treatment. Upon contacting tltc mother of thc petitioner and e lcler brother, they also avoidcd us. Further, thI petitioner sent a notice to hcr sister in Austraha seeking divorc:, which caused hcr grcat trauma.

3. Based on thc szLid complaint, thc police r,.gistered a case in Crime No. 181 of 201(l lor thc offcnce punishable urrder Section 498-4 of IPC and :rfter completion of inr esrigation, they llled the charge sheet, uide C.C.No.9Ol4 of 2O2O. before the XIII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hyderab:,rd. Aggrieved therebl,, the petitioner filed thc present criminal petition to quash the proceeding againsL hirn.

4. Hearcl Sri Pathan Aslam Mohd. Khan, lear rerl counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, leiLrned Assistant 3 SKS,J Crl.P. 0.6064 of 2()25 Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 State. Though notice was served to respondent No.2, none appeared on her behalf.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Lhe alleged offences were committed outside the territorial jurisdiction o[ India, specihcally in Australia. Invoking Section 188 of the Cr.P.C., stating that when an offence is purportedly committed abroad by an Indian citizen, prosecution within India cannot bc initiated without prior sanction from the Central Government and it was observed by this Court in Cr1.P.No.6110 of 2022 and Crl.M.C.No.2448 of 2023, wherein similar conditions rvere reiterated. In the present case, the investigating agency has not secured such mandatory sanction, rendering thc prosecution legally unsustainabie. He further submitted that the Investigating Ofhcer failed to adhere to the procedure laid down under Section 41 of Cr.P.C. while initiating proccedings against the petitioner. Despite the petitioner residing in Australia due to professiona-l commitments, he was erroneously portrayed as an absconder, further undermining the credibility of the investigation. 'ffiW;J&* \ -l .., '.f: \ -I- 4 SKS,J Cr1.P.No.6064 of 2O25

6. Learned cour-rsel for the petitioner conterLded that tl-re allegation regarding the divorce $ras not a unilatr'ral act by the petitioner. In fact, the sister of the de-faclo corrplainant had initiated the process by formally requeqting ,lissolution of marriage through redemption before the Board oI Imams Victoria. Acting on her request, the Board contacted the petitioner uia E-mail on 07 .O2.2O19, enclosing a. letter that expressed her intent to separate. The petitioner responded positively, participated in counseling sessions, ani both parties mutually agrecd to a Khula divorce, u.hich was duLy executed on

19.02.2019 before [he Board. To ensure legai finality and as a precautionary step, the petitioncr subsequerLtll filed for dissolution of marriage before thc Federal Cir:uit Court of Australia. The Court grantcd a divorce decree o,r 04.06.201.9, ofhcially terminal ing the marriage between the retitioner and de-facto complainant's wifc and further conter de d that the present complaint u,as filed with a mala hde int,-'ntion only to falsely implicate the petitioner and subjec[ him to unnecessary criminal proceedings. Thereforc, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner by allou,ing tttis criminal petition. ' iif+riff(!!. l/ -r / ,l i a 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.5054 of2O25 7 . On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition stating that there are serious allegations against the petitioncr, which requires trial. At this stage, quashing the criminal proceedings against him does not arise. Therefore, he praycd the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

8. In view of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is observed that the primary allegation against the petitioner pertains to the issuance of a divorce notice to the sister of the de-facto complainant, who is the victim in the present case. However, the record indicates that the divorce proceedings were initiated by the victim herself by way of redemption and that the petitioner has piaced reliance on a document dated 07.O2.2O),9, wherein the victim requested her husband to grant dissolution of marriage. In thc said document, she agreed to return the paid dower and relinquish the unpaid dower, which was accepted by the petitioner on 19.02.20i9, and the marriage was dissolved with mutual consent and that ail the alleged incidents took place when the victim was residing in Australia. As per the statement of LW .2, the victim is currently residing at Dabeerpura, Hyderabad, however, the statement does not clarify 6 SKS,J C rl.P.t{o.6064 of2025 \. :.:t, .'3{ill.' l \ when she returned to India and that the documcntary evidence reflects mutual consent in thc dissolution of th: rnarriage, as such thrs Court is of the opinion that continual on of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

9. Accordingllr, this Criminal Pctition is all ;rved and the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.9O ll of 2O2O on the hle of the XIII Additional Chicf Judici rl Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hcreby quashed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pcndir-rg, shall also stand closed SD/- L. VIJAYA LAXMI AST;ISTANT REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPYII \ \, \.: \J SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The XIll Additional Chief fVletropolitan lvlagistrate at Narnpally, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, WPS,CCS, DD Police Staticn, Hyderabad City 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. One CC to Mr. PATHAN ASLAIV MOHD KUAN, Advccate tOpUCl 5. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED: 2310712025 ORDER CRLP.No.6064 of 2025 ,4 ,/t..'t>"- /,:' (He S r^ 15 1 I rjEP 2025 ( " ,i/ Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is Allowed. BnL*