Investigation Into Adult Daughter’s Marriage Of Choice Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court Imposes Costs On Police & Father
The High Court quashed an FIR lodged over the marriage of two adults, holding that police investigation into a major citizen’s free choice of partner is an abuse of criminal process and a violation of Article 21, while imposing costs on police authorities and the woman’s father.
Justice J.J. Munir, Justice Tarun Saxena, Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court has held that carrying on a criminal investigation into an adult’s free choice of partner and marriage between two major citizens amounts to an abuse of the criminal law process and violates the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The High Court quashed the FIR lodged over the marriage and imposed costs on both the police authorities and the woman’s father, observing that the police have no business investigating marriages where no crime is disclosed.
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by an adult couple seeking quashing of an FIR registered under Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, after the woman’s father alleged that she had been taken away by blandishment.
A Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena, while holding that the police ought to investigate crimes and not marriages, observed: “The carrying on of this investigation into an adult’s free choice of her partner and marriage between two major citizens of the country is not only an abuse of process of criminal law, but also gross violation of their fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The liberty, that a person, who is a major, enjoys, includes the liberty to marry a person of his/her choice. The police have no business in the matter to be nosy parkers. We have repeatedly reminded the Police that it is no business of theirs to investigate marriages. They ought investigate crimes. This is no crime, where any investigation is required.”
Advocate Abhishek Kumar Srivastava appeared for the petitioners, while Additional Government Advocate Shashi Shekhar Tiwari appeared for the State.
Background
The couple stated that both of them were adults, educated, and had solemnised their marriage according to Hindu rites. They asserted that after the woman informed her family about the marriage, she was threatened, and the couple apprehended interference with their life and liberty.
When the matter had earlier come before the Court, both petitioners appeared in person. The Court recorded the woman’s statement in open court and stayed the investigation and arrest, while also directing protection for the couple.
Despite this, the Superintendent of Police stated that the statements of both petitioners still had to be recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS before the investigation could be concluded.
Court’s Observations
The Court found that once the woman’s identity and voluntary stand were clear, there was nothing left for the police to investigate.
The Court observed: “Upon a reading of the stand of the first petitioner, about whose identity, there was, no doubt, put forth by learned Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent, Mr. Vijay Chandra Srivastava, who was present on 29.04.2026, we are of opinion that there is absolutely no case worth investigation, and the Police utterly wasting their time in going about the exercise. Two adults have married each other according to Hindu rights and both are accomplished persons with good education. There is absolutely no angle of enticement or blandishment involved in this case, considering the age and the education of parties. The first petitioner is aged 27/28 years.”
The Court strongly disapproved of the police's stand that further statements were still required even after the woman had made her position clear before a Division Bench.
The Bench stated: “We are utterly disillusioned by the stand taken by the Superintendent of Police, Bhadohi that the investigation has to be completed. This is a case where the matter ought to have been concluded, in view of the statement recorded before us. The insistence of the Superintendent of Police in getting the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 180 BNSS before the Investigating Officer and Section 183 BNSS before the Judicial Magistrate is almost contumacious.”
The Court further held that no police authority or court in the State had any business recording another statement in such a matter to form a different opinion.
The Court held that costs were warranted because the police insisted on continuing the investigation despite the Court’s earlier order, and because the father lodged an FIR over the adult daughter’s marriage with a person of her choice.
The Court directed: “The impugned FIR dated 19.04.2026, giving rise to Case Crime No. 108 of 2026, under Section 87 BNS, Police Station Suriyavan, District Bhadohi is hereby quashed. A cost of ₹1000 shall be payable, jointly and severally, by the Superintendent of Police, Bhadohi and the Station House Officer, Police Station Suriyavan, District Bhadohi, to petitioner no. 1, and a sum of ₹5000 by the fourth respondent, also to the first petitioner.”
The Court also directed that if costs were not deposited, recovery proceedings would be initiated as arrears of land revenue.
Conclusion
The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the FIR under Section 87 BNS. It directed that an entry be made in the General Diary in red ink, recording that the criminal proceedings stand quashed under the Court’s order.
Cause Title: Saubhangini Shukla & Another v. State of U.P. & Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:154672-DB)
Appearances
Petitioners: Advocate Abhishek Kumar Srivastava
Respondents: Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, Additional Government Advocate; Advocates Vijay Chandra Srivastava & Sunita Sharma