HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 303 of 2021

Mansoor Ali

......Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others

….Respondents

Ms. Sangeeta Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. J.S. Virk, DAG with Mr. Rohit Dhyani, Brief Holder for the State/respondent

nos.1 and 2.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral)

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 Act”) and under Sections 323 and

498-A IPC, lodged by respondent no.3, on 08.02.2021 at Police

Station Lalkuan, District Nainital.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3.

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-Talaq”.

4.

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.

2

5.

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.

6.

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 “Talaq” thrice.

7.

During the course of argument, learned Counsel for the

petitioner submits that the petitioner did not utter “Talaq”. 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.

8.

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.

9.

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.

3

10.

With the above observation, the instant writ petition

stands dismissed.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.)

Vacation Judge

18.02.2021

Nitesh