AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to respondent No.3, CID, to register a fresh complaint under Section - 154 of Cr.P.C. in compliance of
the order dated 07.10.2020 in W.A. No.423 of 2020.
Heard Mr. V. Siva Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondents.
The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition with regard to production of fake divorce certificates dated 14.08.1999, 23.09.1999 and
06.01.1999 in W.P. Nos.12834 of 2000, 9698 of 2001 and O.S. No.166 of 2001 respectively by mother-in-law of the petitioner i.e., Zahida Farzana.
According to him, the said certificates were alleged to have been issued by the Chief Qazi, office of the Quazaath Shariath Panah Balda, Panch
Mohalla, Shah Ali Banda, Hyderabad.
The petitioner herein has filed a writ petition No.36972 of 2013 seeking a direction to the CID to register a fresh complaint, investigate, prosecute,
and to punish the responsible persons for producing fake divorce certificates in W.P. Nos.12834 of 2000 and 9698 of 2001. Considering all the
aspects, this Court vide order dated 27.01.2020 dismissed the said writ petition.
Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein has preferred a writ appeal vide W.A. No.423 of 2020. A Division Bench of this Court
vide order dated 07.10.2020, dismissed the said writ appeal with the following finding:
“In the present case, the appellant-in-person had sought directions from the learned Single Judge to direct the C.I.D. “to register a fresh
complaint, to investigate, to prosecute, and to punish the responsible persons for producing fake divorce certificatesâ€. Obviously, a complaint can be
registered as an F.I.R. only under the provisions of Section 154 of Cr.P.C. The investigation, if successful, would lead to the filing of the
challan/charge-sheet. If the prosecution could establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the trial would end in conviction, and punishment of the
respondents. Thus, obviously, the relief that was sought by the petitioner from the learned Single Judge was within the criminal jurisdiction. Hence,
keeping in mind the principle enunciated by the Apex Court, quoted above, no intra-court appeal would lie against the impugned order.â€
Mr. K. Siva Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that pursuant to the said order, 07.10.2020 in W.A. No.423 of 2020, the
petitioner has submitted a complaint dated 12.11.2020 with respondent No.3, who in turn having received and acknowledged the same, did not act
upon it. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
A perusal of the order dated 27.01.2020, passed in W.P. No.36972 of 2013 filed by the petitioner herein, would reveal that the petitioner herein has
filed W.P. No.11821 of 2001 complaining about the aforesaid fake divorce certificate dated 14.08.1999 issued by respondent No.7 therein viz., Chief
Qazi Office of Qazzath and another fake certificate dated 23.09.1999 filed in W.P. No.9698 of 2001. The said writ petition was dismissed on
07.11.2001, giving liberty to prefer a private complaint before the concerned Magistrate for appropriate action. Pursuant to the said order, the
petitioner filed complaints on different dates and the same were registered as Crime Nos.97 and 98 of 2002 on the file of Charminar Police Station,
Hyderabad; No.56 of 2002 on the file of Hussaini Alam Police Station, Hyderabad; and No.258 of 2003 on the file of Women Police Station, South
Zone, Hyderabad.
With regard to Crime No.98 of 2002 registered for the offences under Sections 420 and 468 of IPC, the police after conducting investigation filed
charge sheet and the same was taken on file vide C.C. No.292 of 2002. However, the said case was ended in acquittal vide judgment dated
24.10.2003 passed by the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. In the said judgment, the learned Magistrate observed that the complainant
had not taken any steps either for production of original documents or sending the divorce certificate with the admitted official seals and signatures of
officials to decide whether it is genuine or not.
As far as Crime No.56 of 2002 is concerned, the same was registered against respondent No.7 for issuing a false divorce certificate dated
10.08.2000 showing that divorce was taken place on 06.01.1999. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet and the same was
taken on file as C.C. No.207 of 2002. However, later the said case was ended in acquittal vide order dated 15.03.2005.
In so far as Crime No.258 of 2003, dated 24.11.2003, it was registered by the Women Police Station, South Zone, Hyderabad, for the offences
under Sections â€" 494 and 420 of IPC, pursuant to the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section - 200 of Cr.P.C., wherein the petitioner stated
that he got married to Sameena Ghouse on 20.12.1996 as per Muslim Law. However, his wife filed a suit before the Family Court, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad vide O.S. No.166 of 2001 to declare that there is no relationship of husband and wife between them due to divorce on 06.01.1999 and
sought permanent injunction restraining the petitioner herein from interfering with her marriage to be performed on 20.12.2001 with some other
person. His wife contracted second marriage on 20.12.2001 without divorce. Thus, second marriage is illegal as the petitioner never divorced his wife.
Even the said suit was dismissed by the Family Court on 05.12.2002. The petitioner submitted a letter dated 08.10.2012 to the Additional
Commissioner of Police seeking a direction to the Women Police station to arrest his wife and file charge sheet. The said letter was forwarded to
Women Police Station for compliance. Even before the said letter dated 08.10.2012, the then Inspector of Police, South Zone, addressed a letter dated
04.10.2012 to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Zone, Hyderabad stating that the case was referred to be ‘action dropped’ in the
month of January, 2004 itself. On 24.01.2013, the petitioner furnished two addresses of his wife. As crime Nos.56 and 57 of 2002 ended in acquittal,
letter dated 18.02.2013 was addressed to the Public Prosecutor, Criminal Courts, Nampally, Hyderabad for opinion as to whether the police can arrest
the wife of petitioner or not. On 15.03.2013, a petition was also filed under Section 173 (viii) of Cr.P.C. before the XV Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, for seeking permission to reopen the case for further investigation.
i) In fact, the petitioner has also filed a complaint before the Lokayukta on 01.04.2013 stating that there was no progress in investigation in Crime
No.258 of 2003. Upon receipt of letter from the Lokayukta, the Commissioner of Police, Submitted enquired into the said aspect and submitted
information to the Lokayukta on 30.07.2013 stating that the allegations levelled by the petitioner do not require any action.
ii) However, Crime No.258 of 2003 was reopened and further investigation was done, and sent two police constables to the places where the wife of
petitioner would be available. During their visits, it was revealed that the wife of petitioner got married to another person and living Abroad with her
husband since five years and that the petitioner herein also got another marriage and living with his wife. Based on further investigation and evidence,
a final report dated 24.12.2013 was filed before the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, on the ground of ‘lack of evidence’. In the said
final report, it was stated by the police that the petitioner neither turned up to Women Police Station, South Zone, nor produced any witnesses relating
to the case for the past nine years and he went abroad for his livelihood. After lapse of nine years, the petitioner submitted a letter under Right to
Information Act, 2005, with regard to stage of crime, and the police furnished the information as the case was referred to as ‘action dropped’.
A perusal of the record would also reveal that the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein vide W.P. No.36972 of 2013 was dismissed by this
Court with the findings mentioned above. The writ appeal No.423 of 2020 filed by the petitioner is also dismissed vide order dated 07.10.2020. In the
said writ appeal, according to the petitioner, the Division Bench of this Court ordered to issue FIR on the complaint filed by the petitioner under
Section - 154 of Cr.P.C. and further directed to investigate and if it is successfully, to file charge sheet and upon successful trial by prosecution lead to
conviction of accused. Respondent No.4 herein is respondent No.3 in the said writ appeal. But, as discussed above, the writ petition filed by the
petitioner herein i.e., W.P. No.36972 of 2013 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 27.01.2020. The above said writ appeal No.423 of 2020
was also dismissed. In the said writ appeal, there is no direction to respondent No.3 herein to register an FIR, conduct investigation and file charge
sheet. The Division Bench in the above appeal has discussed that the petitioner herein had sought directions from the learned Single Judge to direct
the CID to register a fresh complaint, to investigate, to prosecute, and to punish the responsible persons for producing fake divorce certificates.
Obviously, a complaint can be registered as an FIR only under the provisions of Section - 154 of Cr.P.C. The investigation, if successful, would
lead to the filing of the challan / charge sheet. If the prosecution could establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the trial would end in conviction,
and punishment of the respondents. Thus, obviously, the relief that was sought by the petitioner from the learned Single Judge was within the criminal
jurisdiction. Hence, keeping in mind the principle enunciated by the Apex Court, quoted above, no intra-court appeal would lie against the impugned
order. With the said findings, the Division Bench dismissed the said appeal. There is no direction by the Division Bench in the said order to respondent
No.3 herein to register an FIR, investigate the same and file charge sheet.
It appears that the petitioner herein is under misconception that the Division Bench has directed respondent No.3 herein to register an FIR,
investigate into the same and file charge sheet. There is no such direction by the Division Bench in the order passed in the said writ appeal, and in
fact, the said writ appeal was dismissed. Even, in the letter dated 08.01.2020 issued by respondent No.3 - Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW,
CID, Hyderabad also, it is specifically informed to the petitioner herein that there is no such direction in the order dated 07.10.2020 in W.A. No.423 of
2020. Even then, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to respondent No.3 to register a fresh complaint under
Section - 154 of Cr.P.C. in compliance of the order dated 07.10.2020 in W.A. No.423 of 2020. According to this Court, the petitioner failed to make
out any case and the writ petition is devoid of merits and, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed.
The present Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.