# Rais Ahmad & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 7 ILRA 176
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-19
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 16870 of 2023
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rais-ahmad-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50398
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code,1973-Section 482 - Indian Penal
Code,1860-Sections 498-A, 323, 506 - 3⁄4
D.P. Act and 3/4 of the Act of 2019Quashing of entire criminal proceedingsPronouncement of
triple talaq
over
telephone from Saudi Arabia-Mediation
failed- there are materials in the case
diary,
which
show
prima
facie
commission of offences under Sections
498A IPC, 3/4 of the Act of 1961 and
3/4 of the Act of 2019. It is not possible
for this Court, to determine the truth of
the allegations, all of which constitute
the applicants' disputed defence-The
allegations may be true or quite untrueThe Trial Court would have to determine
it, upon holding a trial, wherein both
sides would lead evidence. (Para 1 to 9)

B. The pronouncement of Triple Talaq
being regarded as utterly undesirable
and something to be abolished by the
legislature,
the
Statute
has
to
be
enforced with all its rigours. A prevalent
practice in society takes a lot of time to
eradicate,
and
if
the
legislative
endeavour
is
not
encouraged,
the
likelihood of the practice surviving and
the legislation remaining a dead letter,
is imminent. (Para 7)

The application is dismissed. (E-6)

## Text

176 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 176
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 16870 of 2023

Rais Ahmad & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Umair Mahmood

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Vivek Pandey

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code,1973-Section 482 - Indian Penal
Code,1860-Sections 498-A, 323, 506 - 3⁄4
D.P. Act and 3/4 of the Act of 2019Quashing of entire criminal proceedingsPronouncement of
triple talaq
over
telephone from Saudi Arabia-Mediation
failed- there are materials in the case
diary,
which
show
prima
facie
commission of offences under Sections
498A IPC, 3/4 of the Act of 1961 and
3/4 of the Act of 2019. It is not possible
for this Court, to determine the truth of
the allegations, all of which constitute
the applicants' disputed defence-The
allegations may be true or quite untrueThe Trial Court would have to determine
it, upon holding a trial, wherein both
sides would lead evidence. (Para 1 to 9)

B. The pronouncement of Triple Talaq
being regarded as utterly undesirable
and something to be abolished by the
legislature,
the
Statute
has
to
be
enforced with all its rigours. A prevalent
practice in society takes a lot of time to
eradicate,
and
if
the
legislative
endeavour
is
not
encouraged,
the
likelihood of the practice surviving and
the legislation remaining a dead letter,
is imminent. (Para 7)

The application is dismissed. (E-6)
(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This application under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
('Code' for short) has been filed, seeking to
quash the entire proceedings of Case No.
5381 of 2023, State v. Mohd. Azeem and
others (arising out of Case Crime No. 233
of 2022) under Sections 498A, 323, 506 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for
short),
Section
3/4
of
the
Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 ('the Act of 1961' for
short) and Section 3/4 of Muslim Women
(Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act,
2019 ('the Act of 2019' for short), Police
Station Seohara, District Bijnor, pending in
the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bijnor.

2. It may be noted at the outset that
applicants nos. 1 to 6 have been chargesheeted for offences punishable under
Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and Section
3/4 of the Act of 1961, whereas applicant
no. 7, who is the husband of the
complainant-opposite party, Smt. Rukhsar,
has been charge-sheeted under Sections
498A, 323 IPC, Section 3/4 of the Act of
1961 and Section 3/4 of the Act of 2019.

3. The allegation against the husband
are that on 15.01.2022 at about 04:00 p.m.,
he pronounced a Triple Talaq, putting an
end to the marriage. This divorce in the
triple
mode
was
pronounced
over
telephone. The complainant-opposite party
has complained of cruelty by applicants
nos. 1 to 7, including the said applicants
turning her out of her matrimonial home.
There is a case of demand of dowry by all
the applicants, including cash in the sum of
7 All. Rais Ahmad & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
177
Rs. 15 lacs. The complainant-opposite
party's husband stays and works in the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. There were
certain
other
allegations
regarding
molestation
and
rape,
but
during
investigation,
these
were
not
held
established. However, during investigation,
offences punishable under Sections 498A,
323 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Act of 1961
were found to be disclosed against
applicants nos. 1 to 6, and against applicant
no. 7, under Sections 4987A, 323 IPC,
Section 3/4 of the Act of 1961 and Section
3/4 of the Act of 2019. The Police, after
investigation, have filed a charge-sheet.

4. This Court entertained this
application vide order dated 08.05.2023
and summoned the complainant-opposite
party's husband, who was impleaded,
pending proceedings, as applicant no. 7 to the
application. He is away from the country,
serving in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In
compliance with this Court's order dated
08.05.2023, instead of complainant-opposite
party's husband, her father-in-law appeared
before the Court, and so did the complainantopposite party. The parties were sent to the
Court-annexed Mediation Centre the same
day, with a direction that the Centre may
explore the possibility of resolving the
dispute between parties, if need be, through
video conferencing put across to the
complainant-opposite party's husband. The
report from the Mediation Centre dated
18.05.2023 shows that applicant no. 1 and
opposite party no. 2 appeared before the
Centre, and so did the complainant-opposite
party's husband, Mohd. Azeem, through
video conferencing, but the mediation was
terminated, saying "Parties not willing for the
mediation."

5. Heard Mr. Umair Mahmood,
learned Counsel for the applicants, Mr.
Vivek Pandey, learned Counsel for opposite
party no. 2 and Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari,
learned Additional Government Advocate
for the State.

6. Upon hearing learned Counsel for
parties, this Court finds that there are
materials in the case diary, which show
prima facie commission of offences under
Sections 498A IPC, 3/4 of the Act of 1961
and 3/4 of the Act of 2019. It is not possible
for this Court, as the learned Counsel
wants, to determine the truth of the
allegations, all of which constitute the
applicants'
disputed
defence.
The
allegations may be true or quite untrue. The
Trial Court would have to determine it,
upon holding a trial, wherein both sides
would lead evidence. Of course, it is for the
prosecution to establish the charges.

7. It is noticed in particular that one of
the offences charged against applicant no. 7
is pronouncement of Triple Talaq. This
offence has been created under the Muslim
Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage)
Act, 2019, a statute of very recent origin,
enacted in order to suppress the mischief of
pronouncement of Triple Talaq amongst a
particular section of citizens of India. The
practice has been regarded as oppressive,
and the legislature has decided to suppress
it by making it an offence punishable by
law. Therefore, to liberally interfere and
scuttle a prosecution for an offence
involving pronouncement of Triple Talaq
would be to bog down a statute recently
introduced by the legislature to curtail a
prevalent mischief in the society for quite
some time. The pronouncement of Triple
Talaq being regarded as utterly undesirable
and something to be abolished by the
legislature, the Statute has to be enforced
with all its rigours. A prevalent practice in
society takes a lot of time to eradicate, and
178 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
if
the
legislative
endeavour
is
not
encouraged, the likelihood of the practice
surviving and the legislation remaining a
dead letter, is imminent. That this Court
will not permit to happen.

8. In the circumstances above noticed,
there no good ground to interfere with the
impugned proceedings. The prayer to quash
the impugned proceedings is, consequently,
declined.

9. In the result, this application under
Section 482 of the Code fails and stands
rejected.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 178
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR
UPADHYAYA, J
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Special Appeal No. 337 of 2023

Cantonment Board Meerut & Anr.
 ...Appellants
Versus
Anuj Singh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sanjeev Singh, Ajay Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Gaurav Mehrotra, A.S.G.I., Anant Khanna,
Chinmay Mishra, Lalta Prasad Misra

A. Service Law - Dismissal - Cantonment
Fund
Servants
Rules,
1937
-
Rule
11(2)(vi) - Judicial review is not an appeal
from a decision but a review of the
manner in which the decision is made -
Interference by the Court in exercise of its
power u/Article 226 of the Constitution of
India
in
disciplinary
proceedings
is
permissible
in
case
there
is
some
perversity in the findings recorded by the
disciplinary authority. (Para 6, 19)

In the matter of disciplinary inquiry against an
employee
if
the
disciplinary/appellate
authority arrives at a conclusion which is
based on the material available on record
and if the view taken by the authority
concerned is a plausible view, interference
in such findings by this Court in exercise of its
power
conferred
by
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India should be minimal. (Para
19)

In present case, there is no finding recorded by
the learned Single Judge that the disciplinary
proceedings were not conducted in accordance
with any rule or law. Learned Single Judge has
also not found any flaw or illegality or
irregularity in the procedure followed during the
course of disciplinary proceedings against
respondent No. 1/petitioner. Findings as regards
non-observance of principles of natural justice
have also not been returned by the learned
Single Judge. (Para 20)

B. The adequacy of evidence or even
reliability
of
evidence
will
not
be
permissible for this Court to go into in
exercise of its jurisdiction u/Article 226 of
the Constitution of India if the findings
recorded by the disciplinary authority or
the appellate authority are based on some
legal evidence on which findings can be
based. (Para 21)

Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of
India, the High Court will not re-appreciate the
evidence neither will it interfere with the
conclusions in the inquiry if it has been
conducted in accordance with law and the
applicable rules. The High Court will not
interfere if there be some legal evidence on
which findings can be based. The principle of
proportionality of punishment can be
taken recourse to only if the punishment
inflicted upon the employee shocks the
conscience of the Court. (Para 19)

There is nothing on record which can even
remotely point out that there has been any