Petition to quash FIR dismissed where accused married a minor while having a subsisting previous marriage.

The petitioner, Salman, filed a writ petition seeking the quashing of FIR No. 14 of 2026 dated 13.01.2026, registered at Police Station Gangnahar, District Haridwar.

The FIR was lodged by the complainant (respondent no. 2, Zakir) under Sections 137(2) and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, regarding the abduction of his minor daughter.

The petitioner contended that he married the victim on 16.05.2026 and produced a nikahnama and an Aadhaar card suggesting her birth date was 14.04.2008.

The State and the complainant asserted that the victim was a minor (DOB 25.12.2008) as per her school leaving certificate, and consequently, provisions of the POCSO Act were added during the investigation.

The petitioner further admitted in court that he was already married to another woman since 2021 without obtaining a divorce decree.

The court applied Section 137(2) (Kidnapping) and Section 87 (Abduction) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, along with the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, which imposes strict liability when the victim is a minor.

The court also applied the principle that a second marriage contracted during the subsistence of a previous marriage without a valid divorce decree is null and void.

The court exercised its discretionary writ jurisdiction, noting that interim relief is not warranted where the victim’s minority is established.

The court dismissed the petitioner's claim of a valid marriage by observing that the victim was "admittedly minor" based on the school leaving certificate produced by the State, which overrode the petitioner’s claims.

It reasoned that since the victim was a minor at the time of the incident, the addition of POCSO charges made the quashing of the FIR legally untenable.

The court further highlighted the petitioner's admission of a subsisting first marriage and the absence of a divorce decree, leading to the prima facie conclusion that the second marriage with the victim is null and void.

To prevent the petitioner—who works in Saudi Arabia—from evading the investigation, the court found it necessary to restrict his movement.

The Court refused to grant interim protection or quash the FIR, citing the victim's minority and the subsistence of the petitioner's prior marriage.

The petitioner was ordered to hand over his passport to the Government Advocate for safe custody with the Investigating Officer to prevent him from leaving the country.

Regarding the victim's claim of threat perception, the Court directed her to approach the SSP or concerned SHO for assessment and protection.