The police cannot investigate marriages between consenting adults nor compel statements once the High Court records their choice.

The petitioners—both well-educated majors (Petitioner No. 1, a woman born on 06.01.1998; Petitioner No. 2, a man born on 20.02.1999)—married on 18.02.2026 at the Arya Vedic Sabha, Prayagraj, according to Hindu rites; it was the first marriage for both.

When Petitioner No. 1 informed her father and brother of the marriage on 17.04.2026, they assaulted her and threatened to kill her and her husband; she sent applications by registered post to the Superintendent of Police, Bhadohi and the SHO seeking protection.

The father (Respondent No. 4) thereupon lodged the impugned FIR dated 19.04.2026, Crime No. 108 of 2026, under Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), alleging his daughter had been taken away by blandishment.

On 29.04.2026, the Division Bench recorded Petitioner No. 1's viva voce statement in open Court—she confirmed her age, qualifications, marriage, and her refusal to return to her father.

The S.P. insisted that statements of both petitioners be recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), requesting that the petitioners be directed to cooperate.

1. Whether the FIR under Section 87 BNS, registered at the instance of an adult woman's father after she married a person of her choice, disclosed any cognizable offence warranting investigation.

2. Whether the police were justified in insisting on recording the prosecutrix's statement under Section 180 BNSS (before the Investigating Officer) and Section 183 BNSS (before the Judicial Magistrate) after a Division Bench of the High Court had already recorded her statement in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

3. Whether the continuation of criminal investigation into a marriage between two consenting majors constitutes an abuse of the process of criminal law and a violation of the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Section 87 of the BNS, 2023, which penalises kidnapping, abducting, or inducing a woman to compel her marriage against her will.

Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS, 2023, governing the recording of statements by police and before a Magistrate respectively.

Article 21 of the Constitution: the liberty of a major citizen includes the liberty to marry a person of one's choice.

Exercise of inherent writ powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the FIR.

The Court reasoned that the viva voce statement of Petitioner No. 1 conclusively established that two accomplished, educated adults had married of their own free will, leaving 'absolutely no case worth investigation' and no ingredient of Section 87 BNS satisfied.

The Court characterised the S.P.'s insistence on completing the investigation by recording statements under Sections 180 and 183 BNSS as 'almost contumacious,' reasoning that after a Division Bench had recorded the statement under Article 226, neither any police authority nor any court in the State had any business recording a further statement to form a different opinion.

The Court held that such an inquiry into an adult's free choice of partner is 'not only an abuse of process of criminal law, but also gross violation of their fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21'; the police have no business 'to be nosy parkers' and 'ought [to] investigate crimes,' not marriages.

The Court held that: (i) the FIR disclosed no offence; (ii) the police's insistence on recording statements under Sections 180/183 BNSS after the High Court's recording was unsustainable; and (iii) investigation into a consensual adult marriage is an abuse of criminal law and a gross violation of Article 21.

The Court imposed costs of ₹1,000, payable jointly and severally by the S.P., Bhadohi and the SHO, and ₹5,000 by Respondent No. 4, all payable to Petitioner No. 1.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi at Gyanpur was directed to cause an entry in red ink in the General Diary of Police Station Suriyavan recording that the proceedings stand quashed.