Mansoor Ali vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 44 of 2021, under Sections 3/4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 (for short,

“the Actâ€​) and under Sections 323 and 498-A IPC, lodged by respondent no.3, on 08.02.2021 at Police Station Lalkuan, District Nainital.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

According to the FIR, the informant and the petitioner were married long before. They have two children aged about 13 and 8 years respectively.

The petitioner is in relationship with some other woman, due to which, he used to beat the informant very often and harasses her. On 06.02.2021 at

about 10 in the morning, the petitioner visited the informant at her father’s house and divorced her by “Triple Talaq†by uttering “Talaq-

Talaq-Talaqâ€​.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is a matrimonial discord; parties were married 16 years back and they were living

peacefully. Petitioner and respondent no.3 are children of two real brothers, who had strained relationship, which was settled amicably by the villagers.

Therefore, interference is warranted.

On the other hand, on behalf of the State, it is submitted that first information report discloses the commission of offence and it is cognizable

offence.

It is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Undoubtedly, the petitioner and the informant were married long before having two

children, one of whom is 13 years of age. They definitely stayed together for a long, but the FIR narrates another story of harassment, cruelty and

importantly according to it, on 06.02.2021 the petitioner uttered “Talaqâ€​ thrice.

During the course of argument, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not utter “Talaqâ€. The petitioner is ready and

willing to keep his wife with him. According to the FIR, offence under the Act has also been committed. What is the truthfulness of the contents of

the FIR is definitely subject matter of the investigation. What is the reliability and credibility of the allegations would definitely fall for scrutiny by the

Investigating Officer, therefore, no interference is warranted and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is a case which arises out of matrimonial discord. Therefore, the arrest

should not be made in a routine and mechanical manner.

Needless to say, arrest is not a mechanical act of the Investigating Officer. First and foremost, he has to ascertain the complicity of a person in the

offence and thereafter, to weigh in his mind the need for arrest. This Court has no doubt that the Investigating Officer, in the instant case, shall also

follow the law on the subject of arrest, if any occasion to arrest arises in the instant case.

With the above observation, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.