High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Sharique Ahmed, learned counsel for applicant and Sri S.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State.

2. This is an application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant to quash the summoning order dated 8.7.2024 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate Court No.10, Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case No.157205 of 2023 (Smt. Faujiya Begum Vs. Mohd. Anis and others) u/s 4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Right on Marriage) Act, P.S. Chamanganj, District Kanpur Nagar and also to quash the order dated 9.5.2025 passed by Sessions Judge, Court No.20, Kanpur Nagar in Crl. Revision No.479 of 2024 (Mohd. Anis Akhtar Vs. State of U.P. and Another).

3. The case of the applicant is that the complaint came to be filed by the opposite party No.2 on 10.11.2023 under Section 4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Right on Marriage) Act, 2019 read with section 120B I.P.C. with an allegation that the marriage of opposite party No.2 stood solemnized with the applicant herein on 3.11.2000, however, in the year 2003 Talak came into existence and thereafter on the basis of sweet will of the parties again re- marriage occurred in the year 2009 though the applicant disputed the factum of marriage so solemnized in the year 2009 while preferring the Case No.590 of 2017 but the said case came to be rejected and thereafter the allegations is that on 9.10.2023 the applicant herein along with his father and brother have come to the house of the opposite party No.2 and on the instigation of father and brother of opposite party No.2 the Triple Talak was pronounced by the applicant. Thereafter on 10.10.2023 a notice for Talak came to be issued which was duly replied by the opposite party No.2 on 14.10.2023. A complaint was also lodged for registration of an FIR, however, nothing have done on 21.10.2023 a closure report came to be submitted. On the ground that the independent witnesses Imran Khan and Mohammad Sharik had deposed that no such pronouncement of Triple Talak was done. Post recording of the statement under Section 200 of opposite party No.2 followed by the statement of Mohammad Sohail Ansari and Azhar Hussain Ansari, the applicant came to be summoned by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate Court No.10, Kanpur Nagar on 8.7.2024 under Section 4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Right on Marriage) Act, 2019. Assailing the summoning order the applicant preferred a revision, criminal revision No.479 of 2024 which came to be rejected on 9.5.2025.

4. Questioning both the orders the present application has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the summoning order as well as the revisional court order confirming the summoning order cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the present case is a classic example of malicious prosecution. Submission is that from the perusal of the complaint itself it would be more evident that the complaint stood lodged on 10.11.2023 by the opposite party No.2 wherein the offence is alleged to have been committed on 9.10.2023 which is a false allegation particularly when the applicant in accordance with the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Right on Marriage) Act, 2019 had already sent the first notice of Talak on 10.10.2023 which was replied by opposite party No.2 thorough her counsel on 14.10.2023, however, just in order to forestall the present complaint had been resorted by the opposite party no.2 while projecting a false story about pronouncement of Triple Talak on 9.10.2023. Contention is as per saying of the opposite party No.2 Triple Talak on 9.10.2023 then there was no occasion for the applicant to have send legal notice on 10.10.2023 being first followed by second and third notice by 13.11.2023 and 30.11.2023. Submission is also to the extent that inquiry was conducted twice and report was submitted on 21.10.2023 and 24.3.2024 wherein on investigation it was found that the witnesses Mohmmad Sharik and Imran Khan have deposed that there was no pronouncement of Triple Talak. He submits that on the face of such clinching evidence available on record the court below have committed manifest error of law, summoning the applicant wherein on mere asking on the basis of tailor made statement of the prosecution. He submits that the applicant has been resorted to legal procedure and by virtue of impugned proceedings everything is being set to naught.

6. Learned AGA on the other hand has submitted that a perusal of the statement of the witnesses under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. vis-a-vis the allegation contained in the complaint goes to show that there are no material contradiction of variations wherein which goes to root of the matter to completely erode the prosecution story while making proceedings are triable in nature.

7. I have heard the submission so made across the bar and perused the record.

8. Apparently as the per the allegations contained in the complaint the applicant and the opposite party No.2 was married on 3.11.2000 and thereafter in the year 2003 there was Talak and thereafter re-marriage took in the year 2009 which came under dispute by the applicant by filing proceeding in Case No.590 of 2017 which was dismissed and the allegation is that on 9.10.2023 be the applicant herein on the instigation of his father and brother pronounced Triple Talak while committing the offences under 2019 Act. The basic question which would fall for consideration is whether the Triple Talak was actually pronounced on 9.10.2023 or not and whether the same was a device deployed for negating the legal procedure for obtaining Talak by virtue of issuance of notice is a subject matter of trial. The Court at the stage of summoning is only required prima facie to consider the allegations contained in the complaint vis-a-vis and the statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. In case, there are no material contradictions which goes to the root of the matter then the case becomes triable. So far as the objection of the learned counsel for the applicant that the present proceedings is malicious proceedings is concerned, suffice is to say that depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case particularly when it is an allegation of the opposite party No.2 that Triple Talak was pronounced on 9.10.2023. So far as the report dated 21.10.2023 and 24.3.2023 is concerned the same at best are be defences consideration thereof would be required if raise and necessitated at the stage when the trial commences and not at this stage. Moreover, it is for the applicant to contest the proceedings on merits taking all legal and factual grounds.

9. Accordingly, interference is declined and application stands disposed of.

10. Leaving it open for the applicant to raise all legal and factual issues while contesting trial.

11. At the stage learned counsel for applicant seeks a direction for discharge. In the opinion of the Court, if any discharge application filed by the applicant, the same shall be decided by the court below in accordance with law. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 Md Faisal MOHD FAISAL MOHD FAISAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Sharique Ahmed, learned counsel for applicant and Sri S.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State.

2. This is an application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant to quash the summoning order dated 8.7.2024 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate Court No.10, Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case No.157205 of 2023 (Smt. Faujiya Begum Vs. Mohd. Anis and others) u/s 4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Right on Marriage) Act, P.S. Chamanganj, District Kanpur Nagar and also to quash the order dated 9.5.2025 passed by Sessions Judge, Court No.20, Kanpur Nagar in Crl. Revision No.479 of 2024 (Mohd. Anis Akhtar Vs. State of U.P. and Another).

3. The case of the applicant is that the complaint came to be filed by the opposite party No.2 on 10.11.2023 under Section 4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Right on Marriage) Act, 2019 read with section 120B I.P.C. with an allegation that the marriage of opposite party No.2 stood solemnized with the applicant herein on 3.11.2000, however, in the year 2003 Talak came into existence and thereafter on the basis of sweet will of the parties again re- marriage occurred in the year 2009 though the applicant disputed the factum of marriage so solemnized in the year 2009 while preferring the Case No.590 of 2017 but the said case came to be rejected and thereafter the allegations is that on 9.10.2023 the applicant herein along with his father and brother have come to the house of the opposite party No.2 and on the instigation of father and brother of opposite party No.2 the Triple Talak was pronounced by the applicant. Thereafter on 10.10.2023 a notice for Talak came to be issued which was duly replied by the opposite party No.2 on 14.10.2023. A complaint was also lodged for registration of an FIR, however, nothing have done on 21.10.2023 a closure report came to be submitted. On the ground that the independent witnesses Imran Khan and Mohammad Sharik had deposed that no such pronouncement of Triple Talak was done. Post recording of the statement under Section 200 of opposite party No.2 followed by the statement of Mohammad Sohail Ansari and Azhar Hussain Ansari, the applicant came to be summoned by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate Court No.10, Kanpur Nagar on 8.7.2024 under Section 4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Right on Marriage) Act, 2019. Assailing the summoning order the applicant preferred a revision, criminal revision No.479 of 2024 which came to be rejected on 9.5.2025.

4. Questioning both the orders the present application has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the summoning order as well as the revisional court order confirming the summoning order cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the present case is a classic example of malicious prosecution. Submission is that from the perusal of the complaint itself it would be more evident that the complaint stood lodged on 10.11.2023 by the opposite party No.2 wherein the offence is alleged to have been committed on 9.10.2023 which is a false allegation particularly when the applicant in accordance with the provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Right on Marriage) Act, 2019 had already sent the first notice of Talak on 10.10.2023 which was replied by opposite party No.2 thorough her counsel on 14.10.2023, however, just in order to forestall the present complaint had been resorted by the opposite party no.2 while projecting a false story about pronouncement of Triple Talak on 9.10.2023. Contention is as per saying of the opposite party No.2 Triple Talak on 9.10.2023 then there was no occasion for the applicant to have send legal notice on 10.10.2023 being first followed by second and third notice by 13.11.2023 and 30.11.2023. Submission is also to the extent that inquiry was conducted twice and report was submitted on 21.10.2023 and 24.3.2024 wherein on investigation it was found that the witnesses Mohmmad Sharik and Imran Khan have deposed that there was no pronouncement of Triple Talak. He submits that on the face of such clinching evidence available on record the court below have committed manifest error of law, summoning the applicant wherein on mere asking on the basis of tailor made statement of the prosecution. He submits that the applicant has been resorted to legal procedure and by virtue of impugned proceedings everything is being set to naught.

6. Learned AGA on the other hand has submitted that a perusal of the statement of the witnesses under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. vis-a-vis the allegation contained in the complaint goes to show that there are no material contradiction of variations wherein which goes to root of the matter to completely erode the prosecution story while making proceedings are triable in nature.

7. I have heard the submission so made across the bar and perused the record.

8. Apparently as the per the allegations contained in the complaint the applicant and the opposite party No.2 was married on 3.11.2000 and thereafter in the year 2003 there was Talak and thereafter re-marriage took in the year 2009 which came under dispute by the applicant by filing proceeding in Case No.590 of 2017 which was dismissed and the allegation is that on 9.10.2023 be the applicant herein on the instigation of his father and brother pronounced Triple Talak while committing the offences under 2019 Act. The basic question which would fall for consideration is whether the Triple Talak was actually pronounced on 9.10.2023 or not and whether the same was a device deployed for negating the legal procedure for obtaining Talak by virtue of issuance of notice is a subject matter of trial. The Court at the stage of summoning is only required prima facie to consider the allegations contained in the complaint vis-a-vis and the statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. In case, there are no material contradictions which goes to the root of the matter then the case becomes triable. So far as the objection of the learned counsel for the applicant that the present proceedings is malicious proceedings is concerned, suffice is to say that depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case particularly when it is an allegation of the opposite party No.2 that Triple Talak was pronounced on 9.10.2023. So far as the report dated 21.10.2023 and 24.3.2023 is concerned the same at best are be defences consideration thereof would be required if raise and necessitated at the stage when the trial commences and not at this stage. Moreover, it is for the applicant to contest the proceedings on merits taking all legal and factual grounds.

9. Accordingly, interference is declined and application stands disposed of.

10. Leaving it open for the applicant to raise all legal and factual issues while contesting trial.

11. At the stage learned counsel for applicant seeks a direction for discharge. In the opinion of the Court, if any discharge application filed by the applicant, the same shall be decided by the court below in accordance with law. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 Md Faisal MOHD FAISAL MOHD FAISAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad