Syed Zakir Hussain vs The Government Of Telangana And 3 ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2100 Tel

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

               WRIT PETITION No.14249 OF 2021
ORDER:

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.

2. Heard Mr. V. Siva Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner

and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of

respondents.

3. 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.

4. 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.

KL,J W.P. No.14249 of 2021

5. 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 certificates". 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."

6. 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.

7. 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 KL,J W.P. No.14249 of 2021

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.

8. 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.

9. 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 KL,J W.P. No.14249 of 2021

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.

10. 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 - 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 KL,J W.P. No.14249 of 2021

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 KL,J W.P. No.14249 of 2021

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'.

11. 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 KL,J W.P. No.14249 of 2021

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.

12. 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.

13. 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 -

KL,J W.P. No.14249 of 2021

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.

14. 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.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 14th July, 2021 Mgr