The existence of prior FIRs does not preclude the possibility of a legitimate complaint regarding cognizable offences, and each FIR must be assessed on its own merits.

JUDGMENT

Mukta Gupta, J. (Oral)

The hearing has been conducted through Physical Mode.

1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 84/2019 under Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 (in short the 'Act') and Section 323 IPC registered at PS Parliament Street on the complaint of respondent No.2 on merits.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the ground on which the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR in question is that FIR has been lodged with mala fide, to wreck vengeance which is one of the criteria laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported as 1992 SCC (Crl.) 426, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal for quashing of the FIR. To buttress this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner states that there is a chequered history between the two parties.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner and respondent No.2 were married on 18th February, 2018. On the complaint of the petitioner, FIR No. 185/2019 under Sections 395/511/398/201/120-B/34 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act was registered at PS Pandav Nagar against the respondent No.2 and her associates wherein the allegations of the petitioner were that since the respondent No.2 was in an extra-marital alliance, she along with her paramour and others decided to kill the petitioner and in this regard hired two local goons and paid them a sum of Rs.91 lakh who attempted an attack on the petitioner on 16th May, 2019 and due to the sheer luck, the petitioner's life was saved. It is stated that thereafter the respondent No.2, her father and mother physically assaulted and threatened the petitioner within the Karkardooma Court premises on 21st June, 2019 for which the petitioner lodged FIR No. 208/2019 under Section 323 /341/506/34 IPC at PS Farsh Bazar.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the meantime, the respondent No.2 filed proceedings before the CAW Cell, Central District and the petitioner faithfully attended the mediation and conciliation proceedings before the CAW Cell. During these proceedings on 29th August, 2019 when the petitioner had gone along with two of his associates to attend proceedings, the complainant and her father were also present, however, no re-conciliation could take place. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner and his associates waited for the respondent No.2 and her father to leave and left the mediation room after few minutes. However, when they came out, respondent No.2 initiated an altercation and lodged the above-noted FIR falsely, quashing whereof is sought by the petitioner.

5. It is stated that the FIR has been lodged to wreck vengeance. Petition being a lawyer knows the consequences of Triple Talaq and that the same is not a valid Talaq, hence he would not pronounce the Talaq in the fashion, as stated by the respondent No.2. Version of the petitioner was duly supported by his two associates which fact was not looked into by the investigating officer and based on the complaint of the respondent No.2, FIR was lodged and whereafter charge-sheet has been filed and summons have been issued to the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the FIR in question has been lodged so as to overcome the two FIRs lodged against the respondent No.2 by the petitioner. Further, the petitioner also seeks to take the legal plea that the Triple Talaq as made an offence in the Act was discussed by the five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the decision reported as Shayara Bano Vs. Union of India & Ors. being W.P.(Civil) No. 118/201