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.19696/2018, which is an application for stay.
Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the
marriage between the petitioner’s brother Shahiryyar Mohd. Khan 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’s brother 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 the marriage of petitioner’s
brother, 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 remain
List this petition on 4.2.2019.
Digitally signed by PRASHANT SHRIVASTAVA
DN: cIN, oHIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
JABALPUR, postalCode482001, stMadhya Pradesh,
Date: 2019.01.03 14:02:21 +05’30’