In a False Marriage Promise FIR registered in Lucknow, the State itself flagged a contradiction in the complainant’s statements and a pending recommendation to transfer the case to Delhi. The Allahabad High Court has since directed that cricketer Mohammad Kaif, brother of India pacer Mohammed Shami, shall not be arrested till the next date of hearing.
Lucknow: Ranji cricketer Mohammad Kaif shall not be arrested until the next date of listing in a False Marriage Promise FIR, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has directed, subject to his cooperating with the investigation. The FIR, under Sections 69 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleges sexual relations on a false promise of marriage [Mohammad Kaif v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Others].
A Division Bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Zafeer Ahmad passed the order on October 24, 2026, in a criminal writ petition challenging Case Crime No. 0237 of 2026, registered on September 13, 2026 at Police Station Aashiyana, District Lucknow Central (Commissionerate Lucknow). The matter is listed as fresh on November 4, 2026.
What the State told the Court
The Additional Government Advocate, on instructions, informed the Bench of a contradiction between the complainant’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS. According to the State, the statement under Section 183 refers to an allegation concerning Hotel Hyatt, Lucknow, which appears neither in the FIR nor in the Section 180 statement. Since the allegations mainly relate to Delhi, the Investigating Officer has recommended to higher authorities that the FIR be transferred to Delhi, and the matter is pending before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Lucknow.
Kaif’s counsel responded that no decision had yet been taken on the recommendation and that the petitioner apprehended arrest. The AGA sought time to obtain instructions on whether a decision had been taken.
The interim direction
Listing the matter on November 4, 2026, the Bench ordered:
“Till the next date of listing, the petitioner shall not be arrested in pursuance of the impugned FIR, however, he shall cooperate in the investigation.”
The petitioner was also permitted to file a rejoinder affidavit in the meantime.
The petitioner’s case
Advocate Nadeem Murtaza, for Kaif, submitted that the FIR rests on a wrong and concocted story and that there was no promise of marriage at all, let alone a false one. He pointed out that this specific plea in paragraph 35 of the writ petition had not been denied in the counter affidavit, and that the complainant had first levelled the allegations in a social media podcast on April 29, 2026. The FIR, he argued, was lodged only to malign a reputed person and was liable to be quashed.
The complainant’s opposition
Counsel for the complainant, who is respondent no. 4, vehemently opposed the plea and submitted that the FIR clearly makes out a cognizable offence under Section 69 BNS. On paragraph 35 of the petition, counsel said there was a specific denial.
Why the order matters
The protection is interim and runs only to the next date. The Court has not examined whether the FIR discloses an offence or ruled on the quashing plea, and it expressed no view on the merits. The allegations against Kaif are untested and he is presumed innocent; equally, the complainant’s case remains to be examined in the investigation. The order reflects a familiar approach in writ challenges to FIRs: where the State itself flags inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements and a jurisdictional question is pending, the Court may hold the investigating agency’s hand on arrest while requiring the accused to cooperate.
Case Title: Mohammad Kaif v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Others [Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10500 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Zafeer Ahmad, Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench)
Date of Order: October 24, 2026
Appearances: Advocates Nadeem Murtaza and Wali Nawaz Khan for the petitioner; Additional Government Advocate for the State; Advocates Amar Singh and Malik Meraj Ahmad for respondent no. 4