ORDER :

The present criminal petition is filed to quash the proceedings in Cr. No. 237 of 2021 pending on the file of P.S. Shahinayat Gunj.

2. Heard Ms. Naseeb Afshan, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. P. Shiv Kumar, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 and learned Public Prosecutor for Respondent No. 1

3. Facts of the case

i) Petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 3 are respectively the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law of Respondent No.2. The Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 got married on 06.06.2014 in Hyderabad. Disputes arose between the parties and Respondent No.2 alleged that she was driven out of her marital house on 20.07.2021.

ii) On 26.08.2021, the Petitioner No. 1 through his counsel issued a legal notice to Respondent No. 2. In the said notice, it was stated that Respondent No. 2 can join the matrimonial company of Petitioner No. 1 only after she gets treated for her ‘quarrelsome attitude’.

iii) On 27.10.2021, Respondent No. 2 had filed a complaint with the P.S. Banjara Hills alleging offences under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The said complaint was registered as Cr. No. 787 of 2021.

iv) After registration of Cr. No. 787 of 2021, on 29.10.2021, Petitioner No. 1 through his counsel sent another legal notice to Respondent No. 2. In the said notice, it was stated that Petitioner No. 1, in the presence of witnesses, had pronounced Talaq and divorced Respondent No. 2 on 27.10.2021.

v) On 05.11.2021, Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint with the P.S. Shahinayat Gunj alleging that the Petitioner No. 1 conspiring with Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3, vide notice dated 29.10.2021, had pronounced triple talaq which is prohibited and punishable under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 (hereinafter ‘the Act, 2019). The said complaint dated 05.11.2021 was registered as Cr. No. 237 of 2021 and the same is challenged in the present criminal petition.

4. Contentions of the Petitioners

i) Under Muslim personal law, there are three forms of divorces i.e., talaq-e-ahsan, talaq-e-hasan, and talaq-e-biddat. Section 2 (c) r/w Section 3 of the Act, 2019 only prohibit talaq-e-biddat or any other form of talaq which has an effect of irrevocable and instantaneous divorce.

ii) In the legal notice dated 05.11.2021, Petitioner No. 1 had only pronounced talaq which is talaq-e-ahsan. In talaq-e-ahsan, divorce can be revoked within three months if any conciliation is reached between the husband and the wife.

iii) The legal notice dated 05.11.2021 pronounced a single talaq. Respondent No. 2 instead of going for a reconciliation or mediation within the iddat period had registered a criminal case against Petitioner No. 1. Therefore, the ingredients of Sections 3& 4 of the Act, 2019 are not satisfied.

iv) Respondent No. 2 is a resident of Shaikpet area and received the notice dated 26.08.2021 at Shaikpet. Further, in Cr. No. 787 of 2021 she showed her addressed as Shaikpet. However, she filed Cr. No. 237 of 2021 at P.S. ShahinayatGunj. Therefore, P.S. ShahinayatGunj has no territorial jurisdiction to register the case and investigate it.

v) In light of the arguments, it was prayed that in Cr. No. 237 of 2021 pending on the file of P.S. ShahinayatGunj should be quashed.

5. Contentions of Respondent No. 2

i) The notice dated 05.11.2021 clearly states that Petitioner No. 1 herein had divorced Respondent No. 2 severed all his marital ties with her. This clearly indicates that the divorce was irrevocable and instantaneous. Therefore, the ingredients of Sections 3 & 4 of the Act, 2019 are satisfied and the Petitioners are liable to be punished.

ii) P.S. Shahinayat Gunj had jurisdiction to register Respondent No. 2’s complaint. She was residing at her uncle’s residence which falls within P.S. Shahinayat Gunj’s jurisdiction.

iii) Further, in cases of matrimonial offences, an FIR can be registered at a place where the wife resides and the police are bound to register the FIR, irrespective of t