THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Jabalpur, dated 2.1.2019
Mr. Anil Khare, learned senior counsel with Mr. Sheikh Akram, learned counsel
for the petitioner.
Mr. Aditya Jain, learned Government Advocate for the respondent no.1-State.
Issue notice to the respondent no.2 by both the modes on payment of process
fee within three days.
The notice be made returnable within four weeks.
Heard on I.A. No.19906/2018, which is an application for stay.
Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the
marriage between the petitioner and the respondent no.2 had taken place on
25.2.1998 and they have two sons from their marriage, aged 17 years and five years
respectively. On account of certain matrimonial disputes and the usual strains of
married life, in August 2016 the respondent no.2 is stated to have come to India and
started living in Pune at her brother’s place along with the younger son. On
13.3.2018, the petitioner filed an application in the learned Family Court at Bhopal
under sections 7, 8 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for custody of the
younger son. A month thereafter, on 12.4.2018 the respondent no.2 filed a complaint
at Police Station Hinjawadi in Pune which was transferred to Bhopal as Pune lacked
territorial jurisdiction. Thereafter, on 23.4.2018 the FIR, which is sought to be
quashed by way of this petition, came to be registered as Crime No.92/18 under
sections 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC.
The preliminary argument raised by the learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner is two-folds. First of all he has submitted that the offences,
which are stated to have taken place immediately after marriage, are hopelessly
barred by limitation as the maximum sentence which can be imposed is for an offence
under section 498-A for a period of three years and the same was barred under
section 468 Cr.P.C. He has also stated that the offence having been committed in
Saudi Arabia and the respondent no.2 having left the matrimonial home, which was in
Saudi Arabia in the year 2016, the consent of the Central Government was required
under proviso to section 188 Cr.P.C. before the case was enquired into or tried, which
prima facie dosen’t appear to be there in the present case.
Under the circumstances, till the next date of hearing, the further proceedings
in Case No.RCT/10265/2018 (State of M.P. Vs. Shahiryyar Mohd. Khan)
pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal, shall
List this petition on 4.2.2019.
PRASHANT Digitally signed by PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA
DN: cIN, oHIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
JABALPUR, postalCode482001, stMadhya Pradesh,
Date: 2019.01.03 14:03:21 +05’30’