Allahabad HC Quashes FIR Against Married Adult Couple, Fines Police and Father for Pursuing Sham Investigation

A Division Bench quashed a Section 87 BNS FIR lodged by the bride's father against two educated adults who had married by choice, and imposed costs on police officers and the father for abusing the criminal process.

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has quashed an FIR registered under Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, against a couple who had married of their own free will at the Arya Vedic Sabha, Prayagraj on 18 February 2026. The FIR, Crime No. 108 of 2026, was lodged by the bride's father at Police Station Suriyavan, District Bhadohi on 19 April 2026. A Division Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena, with the judgment delivered by Justice J.J. Munir, held that no cognisable offence was made out, that the police were siding with the father, and that continuing the investigation was a gross violation of the couple's right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Bench imposed monetary costs on the Superintendent of Police, Bhadohi, the Station House Officer, and the bride's father.

The Marriage and the FIR

Petitioner No. 1, Saubhangini Shukla, was born on 6 January 1998, making her 28 years old at the time of filing. Petitioner No. 2 was born on 20 February 1999 and was 26 years old. Both held postgraduate qualifications — M.Sc. degrees alongside B.T.C./D.El.Ed. certifications. Petitioner No. 2 had been newly appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a primary school in Madhya Pradesh.

The couple had been in a relationship for about a year before their marriage. Their wedding was solemnised on 18 February 2026 at the Arya Vedic Sabha, Prayagraj. A marriage certificate and photographs of the ceremony were placed on the writ petition record. Both stated that this was their first marriage and that neither had been married before.

On 17 April 2026, Saubhangini informed her father and brother of the marriage. The response was violent: she was beaten and threatened with death, along with her husband. She sent applications by registered post to the Superintendent of Police, Bhadohi and the Station House Officer, Police Station Suriyavan on the same date, seeking protection for the couple's life and liberty from her father, who was arrayed as respondent No. 4 in the writ petition.

Two days later, on 19 April 2026, the father lodged the FIR under Section 87 BNS — a provision dealing with enticement — alleging that his daughter had been taken away by blandishment. The informant told the Investigating Officer that his daughter's whereabouts were unknown.

Admission and Interim Protection

The writ petition came up before the Division Bench on 29 April 2026. Both petitioners appeared in person. The Bench recorded Saubhangini's statement viva voce in open court. She confirmed her name, her age (27/28 years), her postgraduate education, her marriage to petitioner No. 2, and her clear wish to live with her husband. She explicitly stated she did not wish to return to her parents.

On the strength of that statement, the Bench admitted the petition. Finding prima facie that there was nothing in the FIR worth investigating — since two major citizens had married according to Hindu rites — the court stayed all further investigation and the couple's arrest by an interim order on 29 April 2026. A separate temporary injunction restrained the father, his family, friends and associates from causing any injury to either petitioner. The Superintendent of Police, Bhadohi was directed to ensure the couple's safety.

On the investigative side, the court noted that the Investigating Officer had, by 24 April 2026, already received a communication from Saubhangini by registered post disclosing that she had married petitioner No. 2 at the Arya Vedic Sabha, Prayagraj. That information was entered in Case Diary No. 3. Despite this, the Superintendent of Police's compliance affidavit — treated by the Bench as a return — insisted that statements still needed to be recorded under Section 180 and Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, before the Investigating Officer and the Judicial Magistrate respectively.

Why the Court Found the Investigation Untenable

The Bench was direct in its assessment. Having recorded the prosecutrix's statement itself, it held that no police authority or court in the State had any business recording her statement again and forming a different opinion on its basis.

The judgment stated that the police could have closed the investigation on the basis of the statement already recorded by the Division Bench in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The insistence on further statements under Section 180 and Section 183 BNSS was described as “almost contumacious.”

On the allegation of enticement under Section 87 BNS, the Bench found no angle of enticement or blandishment whatsoever, given the age and education of both parties. Saubhangini was 27 to 28 years old, held an M.Sc. and a teaching qualification, and had voluntarily married. The court observed that the police appeared to be siding with the father and using investigation as a tool to separate an adult woman from her husband against her will.

The Bench held that continuing the investigation into an adult's free choice of partner and the marriage between two major citizens was not only an abuse of the criminal process but also a gross violation of the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The liberty guaranteed by Article 21, the court said, includes the liberty to marry a person of one's choice. The Bench also reminded the police that their function is to investigate crimes, not marriages: “The police have no business in the matter to be nosy parkers.”

Costs Imposed on Police and the Father

The Bench held that costs were warranted against both the State machinery and the father. The action of the police in insisting on further investigation despite the detailed order of 29 April 2026, and the act of the father in lodging the FIR in the first place, were both treated as conduct deserving financial penalty.

The Superintendent of Police, Bhadohi and the Station House Officer, Police Station Suriyavan were made jointly and severally liable to pay ₹1,000 to petitioner No. 1. The father was directed to pay ₹5,000 to her separately. All costs were to be deposited with the Registrar General of the High Court within one week of receipt of the order.

A default mechanism was built into the order: if any respondent failed to deposit, the Registrar General was authorised to issue a recovery certificate against that respondent, directing the Collector, Bhadohi to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue. Once received, the costs were to be transmitted to petitioner No. 1.

Outcome

The Division Bench allowed the petition. The FIR dated 19 April 2026, Crime No. 108 of 2026, under Section 87 BNS, Police Station Suriyavan, District Bhadohi was quashed. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi at Gyanpur was directed to cause an entry to be made in the General Diary of Police Station Suriyavan in red ink recording that the proceedings stand quashed under orders of the High Court. The Registrar (Compliance) was directed to communicate the order to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who would in turn serve it on the Superintendent of Police and the Station House Officer. The order was marked as both speaking and reportable.