Allahabad High Court
SMT. DEEPA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- TARUN SAXENAMUNIR
Holding
The FIR dated 19 March 2026 under Section 137(2) is quashed as it is an abuse of process and violates the adult petitioners' fundamental right to marry and live together under Article 21.
Summary
The petitioners, both adults, married under Hindu rites on 18 March 2026 and live together as husband and wife. The petitioner’s grandmother objected and lodged an FIR under Section 137(2) of the Indian Penal Code, alleging kidnapping. The petitioners contended that the FIR was an abuse of process intended to separate them and violated their fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21. The court recorded the petitioner's oral statement confirming her age, consent, and desire to remain with her husband. Finding that the FIR was filed against consenting adults and infringed their constitutional rights, the court quashed the FIR and ordered the police record to be marked accordingly. The writ petition was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether an FIR under Section 137(2) of the Indian Penal Code can be validly filed against consenting adult spouses.
- Whether the FIR constitutes an abuse of process infringing the petitioners' fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to quash such an FIR.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 21
- Indian Penal Code — s. 137(2)
Subjects
- marriage
- adult consent
- fundamental rights
- Article 21
- FIR quash
- abuse of process
- Section 137
- Hindu marriage
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7041 of 2026
Smt. Deepa And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Umendra Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 47
HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
HON'BLE TARUN SAXENA, J.
In compliance with the order dated 17th April, 2026, notice issued to
respondent No. 4 has been reported by the office vide report dated
6.5.2026 in term that neither the postal was returned unserved nor
the acknowledgment has been received. It is reported that no one
has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 4.
Service upon respondent No. 4 is, therefore, deemed sufficient.
This writ petition is directed against the impugned F.I.R. dated
19.3.2026 giving rise to Case Crime No. 134 of 2026 under Section
137(2) BNS, Police Station Kotwali City, District Etah.
In compliance with our order dated 17th April, 2026, the first
petitioner/prosecutrix is present. She has been identified by Mr.
Umendra Kumar, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners, on
the basis of papers produced by her in Chambers.
Looking to the nature of the controversy involved, we proceed to
ascertain the prosecutrix's stand, whom we have already found to be
a major by our order dated 17th April, 2026. The stand of the
prosecutrix is recorded viva voce as follows:
"आपका नाम क्या है?
दीपा।
आपके िपताजी का नाम क्या है?
CRLP No. 7041 of 2026
2
मुकेश।
आपकी आयु िकतनी है?
19 वषर्।
आपने शादी िकससे की है?
रामू िसह से की है।
आप इस समय कहाँ से आयी हैं?
हरदोई से।
आप िकसके साथ रह रही हैं?
ससुराल में।
आप कहाँ जाना चाहती हैं?
अपने पित के साथ।
सुशीला देवी कौन हैं?
मेरी दादी हैं।
क्या आप दादी के पास जाना चाहती हैं?
नहीं, मैं वहाँ नहीं जाना चाहती हूँ।"
The case of the parties is that the first and second petitioners, both of
whom are majors, have married each other according to their free will
and wish. They have married according to Hindu rites on 18th March,
2026 at the Arya Samaj, Yasinpur, Hardoi. The certificate of marriage
is appended at page 20 of the paper book.
The stand of the parties is clear that they have married according to
their free will and wish and are living together as man and wife. They
say that it is their choice whom they should marry and where they
should stay. The respondent, who is the first petitioner's grandmother,
has dissented from the parties' marriage, and the FIR was thereafter
lodged, which, according to the petitioners, has been done in
connivance with the police in order to forcibly separate the couple
and take the first petitioner back home.
The law is fairly well settled that an adult who is a major under the
law is entitled to marry a person of his/her choice and stay with a
person of his/her choice. This is a part of the fundamental right to life
CRLP No. 7041 of 2026
3
and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The impugned F.I.R., lodged by the first petitioner's grandmother, is
apparently an abuse of the process of the Court. If we had the
slightest doubt in our mind, the statement of the prosecutrix recorded
in Court today has removed it.
In the circumstances, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The
impugned FIR dated 19.3.2026 giving rise to Case Crime No. 134 of
2026 under Section 137(2) BNS, Police Station Kotwali City, District
Etah, is hereby quashed.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah, is directed to cause an entry in
red ink to be made in the G.D. at Police Station Kotwali City, District
Etah, to the effect that Case Crime No. 134 of 2026 under Section
137(2) BNS, Police Station Kotwali City, District Etah, stands
quashed under the orders of this Court.
Let this order be communicated to the CJM, Etah, the Superintendent
of Police, Etah and the S.H.O., Police Station Kotwali City, Etah by
the Registrar (Compliance) through the CJM, Etah.
May 6, 2026
Sumaira
(Tarun Saxena,J.) (J.J. Munir,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SUMAIRA AQUIL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…