The provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 apply only to the husband, not to in-laws, and mere delay in filing an FIR does not warrant quashing without further evidence.

ORDER :

(Anil Verma, J.)

1. Petitioners have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “Cr.P.C.”) for quashment of the FIR bearing Crime No.272/2021 registered at P.S. Rajpur, District Badwani (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Section 498- A, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”), Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 (in short Act of 2019) as well as all the consequential proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajpur in RCT No.376/2020 thereto.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent No.2 Salma lodged an FIR at P.S. Rajpur, District Badwani against the present petitioners and her husband Faizan Saiyyad by stating that her Nikah was taken place with the accused Faizan on 15.4.2019, as per the Muslim rites and rituals. Petitioner No.1 Smt. Aliya is her mother-in- law and petitioner No.2 Farad Saiyyad is her sister-in-law. After the marriage her husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law physically and mentally harassed her for demand of dowry. They pressurized her to bring Rs.2 Lakh from her parents. When she denied, then the petitioners and her husband used to beat her by using kicks and fists. Thereafter her husband uttered ‘Talaq’ thrice and kicked her out. Since then she is living with her parents at Badwani. Thereafter she lodged FIR against the petitioners and her husband. Accordingly offences under Section 498-A, 323/34 of IPC, Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 4 of the Act of 2019 has been registered against the present petitioners and husband of respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the alleged offence has been committed within the jurisdiction of the Mumbai Court, therefore, P.S. Rajpur is not having any jurisdiction to register the FIR in question. Provisions of Section 4 of the Act of 2019 is applicable only against the Muslim husband and not against the in- laws. Omnibus allegations have been levelled against the petitioners for demand of dowry. FIR has been lodged with a huge delay of more than 14 months. No such incident has taken place. No date of such incident has been shown in the FIR. Petitioner No.2 is the sister-in-law of the complainant. Being a married lady she is living separately along with her husband and children at her matrimonial house. She has no occasion to regularly visit at her parent’s home. Respondent No.2 and his brother always used to misbehave with the petitioner No.1. No offence is made out against the petitioners under Section 498-A, 323/34 of IPC. Hence, he prays for quashment of the FIR and all the consequential proceedings thereto.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State opposes the prayer and prays for its rejection by submitting that on the basis of FIR reveals harassment and demand made by the petitioners, therefore, it is not a fit case for quashment of FIR.

5. Nobody is appeared on behalf of respondent No.2.

6. Both the parties heard at length and perused the case diary.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners firstly raised a legal contention regarding the jurisdiction of the trial court by stating that as per the FIR the entire alleged offence has been done in Machchhi Market, Chirag Nagar, Ghatkopar, West Mumbai (Maharashtra) and no part of crime has been committed at the jurisdiction of P.S. Rajpur. Therefore, Police Station Rajpur is having no jurisdiction to register the said FIR.

8. It is a settled position of law that “ordinary rule” engrafted in Section 177 of Cr.P.C. by allowing courts in another local area to take cognizance of the offence. In addition, if an offence committed in one locality is repeated in another, the courts in the other location are competent to hear the case. If an offence is committed in another jurisdiction as a result of the consequences of a criminal act, the court in th