Allahabad High Court quashed proceedings against married couple, criticising police interference in consensual adult relationships. Bench of J. J. Munir and Tarun Saxena flagged rising trend of FIRs targeting lawful marriages.
The Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a young married couple and sharply criticised the conduct of the Uttar Pradesh Police. A Division Bench comprising Justices J.J. Munir and Tarun Saxena expressed concern over what it described as a growing pattern of police interference in consensual relationships between adults. The Court observed that law enforcement authorities were increasingly “chasing couples” and “investigating marriages” instead of focusing on genuine criminal activity.
Factual Backgrounds:
The case arose from a petition filed by the couple seeking quashing of an FIR lodged at the instance of the woman’s father. According to the complaint, the father alleged that his daughter, who was said to be between 18 and 19 years of age at the time, had been taken away in a vehicle by the man and his brother after she went missing.
Treating the allegations as serious, the police registered a criminal case. However, upon judicial scrutiny, the Court examined the woman’s high school certificate and conclusively determined that she was a major at the relevant time.
Observations of the Court:
Further, the Court took into account material evidence demonstrating the existence of a valid marital relationship between the parties. Records placed before the bench showed that the couple had solemnised their marriage in 2025 in Uttarakhand according to Hindu rites.
These documents included a government-issued marriage certificate, photographs of the ceremony, and a joint affidavit affirming that they were living together peacefully as husband and wife. In light of these facts, the Court found no basis for criminal prosecution and proceeded to quash the FIR.
While doing so, the bench reaffirmed the autonomy of consenting adults in matters of personal relationships.
It observed,
“No one has business to tell a major, where he or she will stay, or with whom he or she will live, marry or spend his or her life.”
Emphasising constitutional protections, the Court further stated that the Constitution does not permit any adult “regardless of their relationship” to dictate the personal choices of another adult.
The Court also delivered pointed criticism of police functioning in such cases, remarking,
“We find a disturbing trend these days where the police are registering FIRs and chasing couples, virtually investigating marriages, instead of investigating crimes with which their hands are full.”
It cautioned that such actions not only amount to a misuse of police powers but may, in certain circumstances, themselves attract penal consequences. The bench also highlighted the systemic impact of such conduct, noting that unnecessary criminal cases contribute to judicial backlog and burden the courts with avoidable litigation.
Addressing the father’s allegations, the Court observed that if he was unable to locate his daughter, the appropriate course would have been to file a missing person report rather than initiate criminal proceedings. “There was no occasion to register a crime,” the bench held, characterising the FIR as an unwarranted intrusion into the couple’s personal liberty.
In its directions, the Court called upon the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, and the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to take corrective steps to curb such practices. It warned that failure to act may necessitate further judicial intervention. The Court also directed that an entry be made in the concerned police station’s general diary recording that the FIR had been quashed.
Additionally, the bench issued a writ of mandamus restraining the woman’s father and other respondents from interfering in the couple’s marital life or entering their matrimonial home. The judgment thus reinforces the principle that consenting adults are entitled to make their own life choices without undue interference from either family members or the State, and that criminal law cannot be used as a tool to control personal relationships.