SHHAIK KUSROUDDIN Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Private complaint filed by the second respondent for offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 420 IPC read with 109 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners, referred to the II Town Police Station, Nizamabad, for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate was registered as Crime No.75 of 2001. This petition is filed to quash the said F.I.R.

(2.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that since the complaint in this case was given after there was a divorce between the first petitioner and the second respondent, question of the petitioners committing the offences alleged cannot arise and so, the FIR is liable to be quashed. According to him, after she is divorced by the first petitioner, the remedy of second respondent, if any, is to claim maintenance during the DDDAT period, as per the provisions of The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, and that she lost her right to initiate proceedings under Section 498-A I.P.C. The contention of the learned Counsel for the second respondent is that the first petitioner gave divorce to the second respondent only to get over the criminal liability and in the facts and circumstances of the case, there are no grounds to quash the F.I.R.

(3.) Principles governing the quashing of FIRs are laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 605 and State of Karnataka v. M.Devendrappa, 2002 (1) ALD (Crl.) 412 (SC) = 2002 (3) SCC 89, as per which an FIR can be quashed only when the allegations therein do not prima facie disclose commission of any offence, or if the allegations therein are so absurd that no ordinary prudent man would believe them to be true or if the complaint is in abuse of process of Court and the like.