Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 331
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1480 OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.14077 of 2025)
AYYUB MALIK AND ANOTHER …APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
AND ANOTHER …RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
N.V. ANJARIA, J.
Leave granted.
Aim of all legal proceedings is to arrive at justice, a
meaningful and substantive. In some cases, the justice is done
by bringing home the outcome in accordance with law,
whereas in some matters, the action in law would deserve to
be halted soon and terminated discontinuing the process,
yielding to the legitimate demand of facts and warrant of
circumstances.
2. Heard learned counsel Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran along with
learned advocate-on-record Mr. Ashish Kumar Upadhyay
appearing for the appellants and learned counsel Ms. Saakshi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2026.04.07
18:05:34 IST
Reason:
Singh Rawat along with learned advocate-on-record Mr.
Sudarshan Singh Rawat for the respondents.
1
2.1 Ayyub Malik-appellant No.1 herein and Shahzadi-
appellant No.2 herein, who are husband and wife, have filed
this appeal addressing the challenge to judgment and order
dated 19.06.2025 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at
Nainital, whereby the High Court dismissed Criminal Misc.
Application No.566 of 2021 filed by appellant No.1, which was
an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
1
Procedure, 1973 seeking to quash the charge-sheet,
summoning order and the proceedings of Criminal Case No.10
of 2021.
2
3. First Information Report No.0239 of 2020 came to filed
on 01.06.2020 at Gangnahar Police Station, Haridwar by the
complainant-respondent No.2 herein, who happens to be the
father of appellant No.2. The complainant’s case in the FIR
was that his daughter named Shehzadi-appellant No.2 whose
age was stated to be 17 years, went missing from the house on
24.05.2020 at around 6 o’clock. Despite strenuous search, the
daughter was not found. The complainant stated that he was
informed by one Vaseen Sakur that he saw Shehzadi going
with Ayyub Malik-appellant No.1 of village Saliyar. It was
1
Hereinafter, “Cr.PC.”.
2
Hereinafter, “FIR”.
2
alleged in the FIR that appellant No.1 enticed the daughter of
the complainant and took her away.
3.1 The Competent Court took cognizance on 07.01.2021
and appellant No.1 was charge-sheeted for the offences
punishable under Sections 363, 368, 376(2)(d) of the Indian
3
Penal Code, 1860 as well as under Sections 5(8) and 6 of the
4
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 . The
said FIR resulted into filing of Criminal Case No.10 of 2021
registered with the Court of learned Additional District &
5
Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO, Haridwar .
3.2 Appellant No.1 filed Criminal Misc. Application No.566 of
2021 before the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.
seeking to get the said criminal proceedings quashed.
3.3 What was submitted before the High Court by appellant
No.1 was inter-alia that he and the daughter of respondent
No.2, that is the complainant, had married on 29.05.2020,
before lodging of the FIR on 01.06.2020. The High Court
reasoned that since the State had stated in its counter affidavit
that the victim was minor at the time of alleged incident and
3
Hereinafter, “IPC”.
4
Hereinafter, “POCSO Act”.
5
Hereinafter, “trial court”.
3
that the submissions raised on behalf of the applicant could
not be considered without leading of evidence, refused to
quash the proceedings.
3.4
Calling in question the judgment and order of the High
Court, the present appeal has been preferred by appellant
Nos.1 and 2 jointly. It is the case of both the appellants that
both of them were in relationship of love with each other since
long. It was stated that as there was an opposition from their
family members, appellant Nos.1 and 2 ran away from their
house and got married on 25.09.2020 as per the Muslim rites
and rituals. It was stated that the marriage was performed
before a Kazi, pursuant to which a marriage certificate dated
25.09.2020 was also issued. It was next stated that appellant
Nos.1 and 2 were major in age on the date of contracting of
marriage, as the date of birth of appellant No.2 is 28.05.2000.
In the appeal before this Court, both the appellants affirmed
their separate affidavits in support of their case, making joint
prayer for quashment.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
appellants have been living in matrimonial relationship which
aspect should have weighed with the High Court and in that
4
view the criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR ought to
have been quashed. While countering the said submission on
behalf of the appellants, learned counsel for the respondents
could not dispute the factum of marriage between the
appellants.
5. There is no gainsaying that the appellants are presently
a married couple. Both, out of their own wish and volition tied
matrimonial knot as per the rites of their religion. Both belong
to the same religion. The appeal before this Court came to be
filed by both of them jointly seeking to quash the criminal
proceedings which were initiated at the instance of respondent
No.2-father of appellant No.2. It is also not disputed that the
parties have been happily residing at their matrimonial home
at village Saliyar Salhapur, Ganganahar, Roorkee, Haridwar.
It was stated that a child has been born out of the wedlock.
5.1 Appellant No.2 gave her statement under Section 164 of
the Cr.PC. before the police at the very initial stage on
10.08.2020. She stated on oath thus,
“We have married. We love each other, our family
members came to know and they were unwilling. We left
the house and got married and now our family members
are harassing us. I am happy with him and I want to live
with him only. Some people are torturing us and giving
5
us threats to kill, we want to live in our hoe at Saliyer. I
am also an adult and have married of my own will. This
is my statement.”
5.2 A faint attempt was made by learned counsel for the
respondent to try and submit that at the time of incident when
the appellant ran away with appellant No.2, appellant No.2
was a minor and was not of marriageable age. On the other
hand, it is claimed that the boy and girl had attained
marriageable age when they entered into matrimonial
relationship. Whether appellant No.2 was minor of the age
little less than the marriageable, whether appellant No.1 lured
appellant No.2 and made her eloped with him and whether the
conduct on the part of appellant No.1 was in the nature of
offence alleged against him or not, are the questions which all
pale into insignificance.
5.3 The situation is obtained that now the parties voluntarily
got married and started residing and living together to lead
their married life without any complaint. It is noticeable that
when the FIR was filed by the father of appellant No.2 on
01.06.2020, both the appellants had already married
according to their own will and choice. Presently, both are
6
major and almost six years have elapsed since they are in
matrimonial relationship with each other.
6. It may be true that fleeing with a girl who is not of
marriageable age and who is minor is an offence under law,
however, the subsequent development of marriage between the
two lovers and the fact that they have been merrily living would
outweigh the need to take the alleged offence or the criminal
proceedings to their logical end. In the fact situation like one
obtained in the present one, continuation of criminal
proceedings against appellant No.1 would become harassing
and stand as an abuse of process of law.
6.1 Any litigation brings a kind of botheration for the parties.
The uncertainty of the outcome of the litigation always looms
large. When it is a criminal case, its pendency becomes
burdensome and worrisome. For appellant No.1 as well as
appellant No.2, negotiating the criminal proceedings in a court
of law, notwithstanding that both are now husband and wife
living together, would operate as painful interference in their
happy life. The High Court would have done justice to the
parties only by quashing the criminal proceedings against
7
appellant No.1 initiated by the complainant-father of appellant
No.2.
6
7. In K. Kirubakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu , where the
facts were similar and akin to the present one, this Court,
while quashing the criminal proceedings against the appellant
therein including the conviction and sentence, quoted
Benjamin N. Cardozo, Former Associate Justice of the
Supreme Court of United States, “The final cause of law is the
welfare of society.”
8. Here are the parties in the present case who are the
spouses living and leading their matrimony. In the interest of
rendering complete justice to them, criminal case against
appellant No.1 is required to be put to an end finally. Since it
was stated that the appellants have been staying happily and
peacefully and that appellant No.1 is taking good care of
appellant No.2, this Court does not impose any condition on
appellant No.1 hoping earnestly that he and his family
members would continue to extend due care and affection to
appellant No.2.
6
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2307
8
9. For the facts aforestated and reasons foregoing, the
impugned judgment and order dated 19.06.2025 passed by
the High Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.566 of 2021
is set aside. The proceedings of Criminal Case No. 10 of 2021
pending before the Court of Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Haridwar as well as all proceedings and orders
incidental thereto are also quashed. The pending proceedings
against appellant No.1 shall stand quashed.
10. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
In view of disposal of the appeal as above, the
interlocutory applications, if any, shall not survive.
…………………………...J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
………………………….J.
[N.V. ANJARIA]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 19, 2026.
9
2026 INSC 331
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1480 OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.14077 of 2025)
AYYUB MALIK AND ANOTHER …APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
AND ANOTHER …RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
N.V. ANJARIA, J.
Leave granted.
Aim of all legal proceedings is to arrive at justice, a
meaningful and substantive. In some cases, the justice is done
by bringing home the outcome in accordance with law,
whereas in some matters, the action in law would deserve to
be halted soon and terminated discontinuing the process,
yielding to the legitimate demand of facts and warrant of
circumstances.
2. Heard learned counsel Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran along with
learned advocate-on-record Mr. Ashish Kumar Upadhyay
appearing for the appellants and learned counsel Ms. Saakshi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2026.04.07
18:05:34 IST
Reason:
Singh Rawat along with learned advocate-on-record Mr.
Sudarshan Singh Rawat for the respondents.
1
2.1 Ayyub Malik-appellant No.1 herein and Shahzadi-
appellant No.2 herein, who are husband and wife, have filed
this appeal addressing the challenge to judgment and order
dated 19.06.2025 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at
Nainital, whereby the High Court dismissed Criminal Misc.
Application No.566 of 2021 filed by appellant No.1, which was
an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
1
Procedure, 1973 seeking to quash the charge-sheet,
summoning order and the proceedings of Criminal Case No.10
of 2021.
2
3. First Information Report No.0239 of 2020 came to filed
on 01.06.2020 at Gangnahar Police Station, Haridwar by the
complainant-respondent No.2 herein, who happens to be the
father of appellant No.2. The complainant’s case in the FIR
was that his daughter named Shehzadi-appellant No.2 whose
age was stated to be 17 years, went missing from the house on
24.05.2020 at around 6 o’clock. Despite strenuous search, the
daughter was not found. The complainant stated that he was
informed by one Vaseen Sakur that he saw Shehzadi going
with Ayyub Malik-appellant No.1 of village Saliyar. It was
1
Hereinafter, “Cr.PC.”.
2
Hereinafter, “FIR”.
2
alleged in the FIR that appellant No.1 enticed the daughter of
the complainant and took her away.
3.1 The Competent Court took cognizance on 07.01.2021
and appellant No.1 was charge-sheeted for the offences
punishable under Sections 363, 368, 376(2)(d) of the Indian
3
Penal Code, 1860 as well as under Sections 5(8) and 6 of the
4
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 . The
said FIR resulted into filing of Criminal Case No.10 of 2021
registered with the Court of learned Additional District &
5
Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO, Haridwar .
3.2 Appellant No.1 filed Criminal Misc. Application No.566 of
2021 before the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.
seeking to get the said criminal proceedings quashed.
3.3 What was submitted before the High Court by appellant
No.1 was inter-alia that he and the daughter of respondent
No.2, that is the complainant, had married on 29.05.2020,
before lodging of the FIR on 01.06.2020. The High Court
reasoned that since the State had stated in its counter affidavit
that the victim was minor at the time of alleged incident and
3
Hereinafter, “IPC”.
4
Hereinafter, “POCSO Act”.
5
Hereinafter, “trial court”.
3
that the submissions raised on behalf of the applicant could
not be considered without leading of evidence, refused to
quash the proceedings.
3.4
Calling in question the judgment and order of the High
Court, the present appeal has been preferred by appellant
Nos.1 and 2 jointly. It is the case of both the appellants that
both of them were in relationship of love with each other since
long. It was stated that as there was an opposition from their
family members, appellant Nos.1 and 2 ran away from their
house and got married on 25.09.2020 as per the Muslim rites
and rituals. It was stated that the marriage was performed
before a Kazi, pursuant to which a marriage certificate dated
25.09.2020 was also issued. It was next stated that appellant
Nos.1 and 2 were major in age on the date of contracting of
marriage, as the date of birth of appellant No.2 is 28.05.2000.
In the appeal before this Court, both the appellants affirmed
their separate affidavits in support of their case, making joint
prayer for quashment.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
appellants have been living in matrimonial relationship which
aspect should have weighed with the High Court and in that
4
view the criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR ought to
have been quashed. While countering the said submission on
behalf of the appellants, learned counsel for the respondents
could not dispute the factum of marriage between the
appellants.
5. There is no gainsaying that the appellants are presently
a married couple. Both, out of their own wish and volition tied
matrimonial knot as per the rites of their religion. Both belong
to the same religion. The appeal before this Court came to be
filed by both of them jointly seeking to quash the criminal
proceedings which were initiated at the instance of respondent
No.2-father of appellant No.2. It is also not disputed that the
parties have been happily residing at their matrimonial home
at village Saliyar Salhapur, Ganganahar, Roorkee, Haridwar.
It was stated that a child has been born out of the wedlock.
5.1 Appellant No.2 gave her statement under Section 164 of
the Cr.PC. before the police at the very initial stage on
10.08.2020. She stated on oath thus,
“We have married. We love each other, our family
members came to know and they were unwilling. We left
the house and got married and now our family members
are harassing us. I am happy with him and I want to live
with him only. Some people are torturing us and giving
5
us threats to kill, we want to live in our hoe at Saliyer. I
am also an adult and have married of my own will. This
is my statement.”
5.2 A faint attempt was made by learned counsel for the
respondent to try and submit that at the time of incident when
the appellant ran away with appellant No.2, appellant No.2
was a minor and was not of marriageable age. On the other
hand, it is claimed that the boy and girl had attained
marriageable age when they entered into matrimonial
relationship. Whether appellant No.2 was minor of the age
little less than the marriageable, whether appellant No.1 lured
appellant No.2 and made her eloped with him and whether the
conduct on the part of appellant No.1 was in the nature of
offence alleged against him or not, are the questions which all
pale into insignificance.
5.3 The situation is obtained that now the parties voluntarily
got married and started residing and living together to lead
their married life without any complaint. It is noticeable that
when the FIR was filed by the father of appellant No.2 on
01.06.2020, both the appellants had already married
according to their own will and choice. Presently, both are
6
major and almost six years have elapsed since they are in
matrimonial relationship with each other.
6. It may be true that fleeing with a girl who is not of
marriageable age and who is minor is an offence under law,
however, the subsequent development of marriage between the
two lovers and the fact that they have been merrily living would
outweigh the need to take the alleged offence or the criminal
proceedings to their logical end. In the fact situation like one
obtained in the present one, continuation of criminal
proceedings against appellant No.1 would become harassing
and stand as an abuse of process of law.
6.1 Any litigation brings a kind of botheration for the parties.
The uncertainty of the outcome of the litigation always looms
large. When it is a criminal case, its pendency becomes
burdensome and worrisome. For appellant No.1 as well as
appellant No.2, negotiating the criminal proceedings in a court
of law, notwithstanding that both are now husband and wife
living together, would operate as painful interference in their
happy life. The High Court would have done justice to the
parties only by quashing the criminal proceedings against
7
appellant No.1 initiated by the complainant-father of appellant
No.2.
6
7. In K. Kirubakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu , where the
facts were similar and akin to the present one, this Court,
while quashing the criminal proceedings against the appellant
therein including the conviction and sentence, quoted
Benjamin N. Cardozo, Former Associate Justice of the
Supreme Court of United States, “The final cause of law is the
welfare of society.”
8. Here are the parties in the present case who are the
spouses living and leading their matrimony. In the interest of
rendering complete justice to them, criminal case against
appellant No.1 is required to be put to an end finally. Since it
was stated that the appellants have been staying happily and
peacefully and that appellant No.1 is taking good care of
appellant No.2, this Court does not impose any condition on
appellant No.1 hoping earnestly that he and his family
members would continue to extend due care and affection to
appellant No.2.
6
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2307
8
9. For the facts aforestated and reasons foregoing, the
impugned judgment and order dated 19.06.2025 passed by
the High Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.566 of 2021
is set aside. The proceedings of Criminal Case No. 10 of 2021
pending before the Court of Additional District & Sessions
Judge, Haridwar as well as all proceedings and orders
incidental thereto are also quashed. The pending proceedings
against appellant No.1 shall stand quashed.
10. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
In view of disposal of the appeal as above, the
interlocutory applications, if any, shall not survive.
…………………………...J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
………………………….J.
[N.V. ANJARIA]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 19, 2026.
9