Saubhangini Shukla And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9542 of 2026
Saubhangini Shukla and
another
…..Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and others …..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Mr. Abhishek Kumar Srivstava,
Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Chandra Srivastava along
with Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advocates
for respondent no. 4
Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwari,
Additional Government Advocate
on behalf of the State
RESERVED
Court No. - 2
HON’BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
HON’BLE TARUN SAXENA, J.
(DELIVERED BY : J.J. MUNIR, J.)
This writ petition is directed against the impugned First Information
Report dated 19.04.2026, giving rise to Crime No. 108 of 2026, under
Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station
Suriyavan, District Bhadohi.

2
CRLP No. 9542 of 2026
2. The case of the first and second petitioner is that they are major
according to the laws of the country, and were into a relationship for the
past one year. They have, therefore, decided to marry and stay together for
life. Their marriage has been solemnised on 18.02.2026 at the Arya Vedic
Sabha, Prayagraj. Both the petitioners are not only of the age of majority,
but well educated. They have passed their M.Sc., BTC. According to the
high school certificate, the date of birth of the first petitioner is
06.01.1998, whereas that of the second petitioner, is 20.02.1999. Thus,
petitioner no. 1 is aged 28 years, whereas petitioner no. 2, 26 years. A
copy of the petitioners' marriage certificate dated 18.02.2026 from the
Arya Vedic Sabha, Prayagraj, and some photographs of the ceremony are
on record of the writ petition. It is also asserted that this is the first
marriage for both the petitioners and they had not married previously.
Petitioner no. 2 is a newly-appointed Assistant Teacher in a primary
school at Madhya Pradesh, and can, by himself, support the first
petitioner.
3. It is averred in paragraph no. 15 that after her marriage to petitioner
no. 1, the second petitioner brought the fact to the notice of her father and
brother on 17.04.2026, which annoyed them much. They beat her up and
threatened to kill her as well as her husband. She left her parents' home
and gave an application to the Superintendent of Police, Bhadohi as well
as the Station House Officer, Police Station Suriyavan, District Bhadohi,
which she sent through registered post on 17.04.2026 to protect the

3
CRLP No. 9542 of 2026
petitioners' life and liberty from the fourth respondent, who is her father.
A copy of the said application is also on record as well as postal receipts
of dispatch.
4. It is the further case of the petitioners that both of them are living
happily together as husband and wife, but the fourth respondent, who is
the first petitioner's father, and the other family members, have not taken
kindly to the marriage and, in collusion with the Police, are out to arrest
them illegally, separate them forcibly and hand over the first petitioner, an
adult and a major, back to her father, against her will and wish. Both the
petitioners have expressed apprehension to their life and liberty at the
hands of the fourth respondent. It is then said that the petitioners, being of
the age of majority, are entitled to marry and stay together as man and
wife, and any infraction thereof at the instance of her father, in
connivance with the Police, is an abuse of process of law.
5. On 29.04.2026, when this petition came up for admission, both the
petitioners appeared and we recorded the stand of the first petitioner viva
voce in Court, to which we shall presently allude. On the basis of the first
petitioner's stand, we admitted this petition to hearing, and it being a case
where two major citizens of the country had married according to Hindu
rites, we prima facie found that there was nothing in the FIR to
investigate. Therefore, by an interim order of the same date, we stayed
investigation by the Police and also the petitioners’ arrest. By a separate
injunction temporary, we restrained the fourth respondent and members

4
CRLP No. 9542 of 2026
his family, friends and associates from causing any injury in life and limb
to the first and the second petitioner and obliged the Superintendent of
Police to ensure that no harm comes to the petitioners at the hands of the
fourth respondent or anyone acting on his behest.
6. Mr. Vijay Chandra Srivastava and Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advocates
who appeared on behalf of respondent no. 4, have not filed any counter
affidavit. A compliance affidavit has been filed by the Superintendent of
Police, Bhadohi, which we have treated as a counter affidavit. The
petitioner has waived his right to file a rejoinder.
7. Heard Mr. Abhishek Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Vijay Chandra Srivastava and Ms. Sunita Sharma, learned
Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 4, and Mr. Shashi Shekhar
Tiwari, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of
the State.
8. In the compliance affidavit, which is taken to be a return in the
matter on behalf of the State, the Superintendent of Police has said that
the FIR giving rise to the crime disclosed a cognisable offence, and
accordingly, it was registered. In Case Diary No. 1 on 20.04.2026, the
Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the scribe of the FIR, the
informant and conducted a site inspection. The informant reiterated his
allegations in the FIR that his daughter has been taken away by
blandishment by the second petitioner, and their whereabouts were not

5
CRLP No. 9542 of 2026
known. The Superintendent of Police has said that local inquiries and
deployment of informants was done, but no fruitful information was
forthcoming. In Case Diary No. 2 dated 22.04.2026, further efforts were
made to locate petitioner no. 1, and the nominated accused, that is to say,
petitioner no. 2. However, no leads emerged, and informants were again
deployed for tracing out both the petitioners.
9. On 24.04.2026, the Investigating Officer received, through
registered post, an intimation sent by petitioner no. 1, saying that she had
solemnised marriage with petitioner no. 2 at the Arya Vedic Sabha,
Prayagraj. This information was entered in Case Diary No. 3 and placed
on record.
10. It is next averred in paragraph no. 10 that upon receipt of this
Court’s order on 29.04.2026, all further investigations and consequential
proceedings have been kept in abeyance in strict compliance. The order of
this Court, restraining respondent no. 4 from harming the petitioners too
has been served, and a copy of the memo has been annexed to the return.
11. The next averment in paragraph no. 12 says that statements of both
petitioners have to be recorded under Section 180 and 183 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Since both petitioners are
adults and fully capable of making their own decisions, the Police have no
occasion or authority to interfere in their personal life. It is, therefore,
asserted that the petitioners may kindly be directed to cooperate with the

6
CRLP No. 9542 of 2026
ongoing investigation by presenting themselves for recording their
statements under the aforesaid provisions. Upon cooperation being
extended by the petitioners and their statements recorded, the
investigation shall be concluded expeditiously, in accordance with law.
12. We may now, at this stage, hark back to the statement of the
prosecutrix, the first petitioner before this Court, which is recorded in our
order dated 29.04.2026. It reads :
Q. ?
आपका नाम
A.
सौंभागिनी शुक्ला ।
Q. ?
आपके पिताजी का नाम
A.
श्री प्रकाश नारायण शुक्ला ।
Q. ?
आपकी उम्र कि तनी है
A.
२७ साल।
Q. ?
आप कहाँ तक पढ़ी हुई हैं
A.
जी मैं पोस्ट ग्रेजुएट हूँ ।
Q. ?
क्या डिग्री है आपके पास
A. B.Sc. , M.Sc. (Physics and Math) D.El.Ed.
की है की है और मैंने
B.T.C.
किया हुआ है।
Q. ?
आपने शादी की है
A. Yes.

7
CRLP No. 9542 of 2026
Q. ?
कि ससे शादी की है आपने
A.
श्री प्रवि गुप्ता से।
Q. ?
आप इस वक्त कहाँ से आयी हैं
A.
सर मैं श्री प्रवि के साथ आयी हूँ पर कहाँ से आयी हूँ सुरक्षा कारणों के
वजह से यह नहीं बता सकती।
Q. ?
आप कि सके साथ रहना चाहती हैं
A.
श्री प्रवि के साथ।
Q. ?
आप अपने पिता के पास वापस जाना चाहती हैं
A. , ,
नामर्ली जैसे लड़कियाँ मायका ससुराल करती हैं अगर वो चाहें तो पर
मैं अपना पूरा फ्यूचर श्री प्रवि के साथ जीना चाहती हूं ।
13. 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.

8
CRLP No. 9542 of 2026
14. 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.
After the prosecutrix/petitioner no. 1 has had her statement recorded by a
Division Bench of the High Court, no Court in the State or police
authority have business, in a matter like the present one, to record any
further statement for the first petitioner and form a different opinion on its
basis. If the Police wanted to close the investigation, they could have done
it on the basis of the prosecutrix’s statement recorded in the exercise of
our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
15. We are minded to think that the petitioners are right that the Police
are indeed siding with the fourth respondent and wish to carry on the
investigation by recording statements of parties, where they have already
disclosed their mind before this Court viva voce and their stand has been
reduced to writing in our orders. 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,

9
CRLP No. 9542 of 2026
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.
16. Considering the action of the Police in insisting that they would still
investigate the marriage, despite our detailed order on 29.04.2026, and the
act of the fourth respondent in lodging an FIR regarding a marriage
between his daughter who is a major and a person of her choice, we are of
opinion that some costs deserve to be imposed on both parties, that is to
say, the State as well as the fourth respondent.
17. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. 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 said costs
₹
shall be deposited with the learned Registrar General of this Court within
a week of the receipt of this order. In the event, costs are not deposited,
the learned Registrar General shall issue a recovery certificate against the
defaulting respondent(s), authorising the Collector, Bhadohi to recover the
sum of money as arrears of land revenue; and once the costs are received

10
CRLP No. 9542 of 2026
in account by the learned Registrar General, the same shall be paid to the
first petitioner. In case the costs are deposited by any of the respondents,
as directed, of their own, it would be transmitted in account by the learned
Registrar General to the first petitioner immediately.
18. An entry shall be caused to be made in the General Diary of Police
Station, Suriyavan, District Bhadohi by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bhadohi at Gyanpur in red ink that proceedings of Case Crime
No. 108 of 2026, under Section 87 BNS, Police Station Suriyavan,
District Bhadohi stand quashed under orders of this Court.
19. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order
to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi at Gyanpur and through
her, to the Superintendent of Police, Bhadohi and the Station House
Officer, Police Station Surivayan, District Bhadohi.
(J.J. MUNIR, J.)
(TARUN SAXENA, J.)
Allahabad
July 27, 2026
I. Batabyal
Whether the order is speaking : Yes
Whether the order is reportable : Yes
Digitally signed by :-
ISHAN BATABYAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad